RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Ash writes: "Many of our readers are strongly advocating the candidacy of Jill Stein. The problem is that, polling at 2% nationally, she has no chance whatsoever of being elected. In fact, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, running under the Libertarian banner, has triple the supporters Stein has, and he doesn't even appear to be totally coherent."

Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein. (photo: American Herald Tribune)
Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein. (photo: American Herald Tribune)


Jill Stein

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

25 October 16

 

any of our readers are strongly advocating the candidacy of Jill Stein. The problem is that, polling at 2% nationally, she has no chance whatsoever of being elected. In fact, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, running under the Libertarian banner, has triple the supporters Stein has, and he doesn’t even appear to be totally coherent.

So it isn’t really a candidacy at all that Stein’s supporters are promoting, it’s more of an ideal or a lecture on political responsibility. The candidacy provides the platform for the ideology.

The reason Sanders succeeded in being viable as a presidential candidate is that he was able to convince progressive Democrats that supporting him would not open the door to another Richard Nixon or George W. Bush.

American Green Party activists have long understood that the ranks of progressive Democrats held the potential for large numbers of third-party recruits. What they never understood was that for progressives to come to their movement, there had to be a “safe means of transit.”

The Greens think that just because rank and file Democratic voters resent the Democratic Party, they’re going to leave and join the Green Party. That won’t happen until the GP infrastructure is in place.

In fairness to Stein and her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, the platform they have crafted is full of wonderful ideas. It’s the most socially responsive presidential platform of the current candidates. But they knew at the time that they crafted it that in all likelihood they would never have to materially deliver on any of it. As a result they were free to make a purely political statement.

To say that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump echoes the disastrous memes of 1968 and 2000. No difference between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon? No difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore?

The difference was life and death for millions. The choice of political leaders always carries great consequence. The higher the office, the greater the significance.

What Sanders understood was that he could push the Democratic Party for fundamental political change and reform but he had to demonstrate that he would not open the door to a Ted Cruz or a Donald Trump.

Sanders, a well noted Socialist running within the Democratic Party structure and vowing not to go rogue with an independent campaign should he fail to gain the Democratic nomination, garnered more progressive Democratic support than all Green Party presidential candidates combined. He did it and is still doing it without demonizing anyone.

Demonizing Democrats as a strategy for building a Green Party has always failed, and should be declared dead by anyone who really wants to organize.

What is needed is “honest organizing.” When you have no chance of winning and you are staying in the race to garner public attention for what you see as socially beneficial policies or perhaps to get enough votes to qualify for federal funding in the next presidential election, then you need to say that. Painting the Democratic candidate as the devil to achieve those ends is ludicrous.

What the Green Party needs is organizing and infrastructure. The Green Party can’t afford an adversarial relationship with the Democrats. They need an alliance. Such an alliance would aid, not deter, Green organizing.

For those who are serious about an American Green Party, follow Sanders’ lead. Infiltrate the Democratic Party and make change impossible to ignore. Collaborate with Our Revolution and similar organizations. Demonstrate the kind of leadership that builds confidence by showing confidence in your own ideas.

The American left is hungry for change – build it.



Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+42 # kyzipster 2016-10-25 12:03
Well said Marc.

I hate to say it but perhaps real progressives should follow the Tea Party example. I'm well aware that the Tea Party was a creation of the media but it evolved into a real force challenging establishment Republicans in Congress and at the state level. They managed to remove some sane and somewhat reasonable Republicans from Congress because they were not conservative enough for the Tea Party. It could be argued that Trump came out of this extremist movement.

Greens could go after establishment Democrats in the same way in the most liberal districts the way that an independent socialist like Sanders challenged Clinton within the Democratic Party. Dianne Feinstein in California comes to mind.

Sanders was wise to run as a Democrat. He had a much bigger impact on this election and on the future than Stein.

It's Congress that a progressive revolution should focus on. Had Sanders won the nomination (and I supported him fully), there's no reason to think he could have accomplished much with this Congress. I'm not a fan of Clinton but she is a self serving politician above all else. If elected with a progressive Congress in place, she wouldn't resist. In the same way that Trump will not resist the Ayn Rand extremism of Paul Ryan if elected.

It largely comes down to the will of the people despite the power of corporations. The Conservative Movement is still the number one enemy of the Progressive Movement, establishment Democrats are #2.
 
 
+76 # Johnny 2016-10-25 13:50
Like all Hillarybots, Kyzipster and Ash completely ignore Clinton's inconvenient promise to establish a "no fly zone" in Syria and to attack Iran. But, hey, what's a little thermonuclear war when you can elect the first woman president?
 
 
+35 # Petit-pois 2016-10-25 15:26
Hey Johnny
I'm sitting in Iran writing this.
I cannot bear HRC and I cannot decide which would be worse for us, her or Trump. They both terrify me.
Long term for the US though I think a HUGE consideration has to be the vacancy (and probably more soon) in the Supreme Court. Do you want to vote for fundamentalism? That is what a vote for Trump/Pence will give you. And those judges stick around for ever!
 
 
+11 # elizabethblock 2016-10-25 16:23
Yes.
I voted for Clinton on account of those two words:
SUPREME
COURT
And I vote in New York, which is almost sure to go Democratic. I was tempted to vote Green, but you never know for sure.
 
 
+7 # Brice 2016-10-25 19:13
99.9% of our citizens ought to have the sense to think the same way and act in concert with you. I wonder really, why don't they?

The Supreme Court is one reason we are so far down the hole to rule by the elite ... we have not been thinking or paying attention. It's very sad.

A Supreme Court that was working for the people would go a long way towards fixing the worst things in our country.
 
 
+23 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-25 21:11
And why would this be the one area where HRC was concerned about the welfare of The People?
 
 
+2 # Brice 2016-10-25 21:48
That's mere Trump talk, you cannot say Clinton has not worked for the people. The trouble is she has not had policy making power. If she had pushed through health care we would be decades ahead of where we are now.

I really agree with the criticisms of the anti-Clinton folks that they are not comparing things fairly ... Clinton is the Liberal here, whether or not she is a radical is certainly debateable, but she is not Bush, or Trump, or Cruz for God's sake.
 
 
+14 # wrknight 2016-10-26 08:11
Quoting Brice:
That's mere Trump talk, you cannot say Clinton has not worked for the people....

Yes I can. Please tell me exactly what she has done for the American people.

How have you benefited from anything Hillary has done? Better healthcare? Better wages and living conditions? Better schools? Better roads and infrastructure? Better transportation? Better environment? Better security? (Is you personal security any better now than before and what did Hillary do to affect that?)

I keep hearing about how much work Hillary has done for the people, but I can't find the results anywhere I look. So tell me, please, what am I missing. (Details, please. No bullshit.)
 
 
+19 # wrknight 2016-10-26 08:20
Now if I include the people of other countries in the question above, I am aware of what Hillary has done for the Libyans, the Yemenis, the Crimeans and eastern Ukranians, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Russians and the Israelis. And except for the Israelis who she worked diligently for, I doubt that many of those people would speak well of her accomplishments .
 
 
+7 # Ann M Garrison 2016-10-27 14:14
You forgot the Rwandans and Congolese. All three Clintons are bg supporters of Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame and his repeated invasions and occupations of DR Congo.
 
 
+6 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-27 19:17
Few have the time to keep track of all of the misery and death inflicted, directly and indirectly, by the Clintons.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-10-27 21:24
There should be a web site. It would be a test of their capabilities to see who got to it first -- her lawyers or her hackers.

Sometimes the Clinton campaign shows technical savvy, but they also use the excuse that they .. shucks .. they just don't get all that sophistimucated technology .. aaa-yup.
 
 
+4 # John S. Browne 2016-10-28 05:57
#

There is at least one such website (I don't recall where now), but you may not like it because it, and/or they, are probably on (a) "conservative" site(s). God forbid from most "liberals" perspective that I admit this, but I take from the "conservatives" what they have correct, just as I take from the "liberals" what they have correct; and I discard all of the rest on both sides of the isle. (I am a constitutionali st and neither "liberal" nor "conservative".)

#
 
 
+10 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-26 17:09
I cannot say that she has not "worked for the people", at some point. I have not thoroughly studied her entire career. But she has certainly worked against the people in many ways. Her support for all of our wars hurts our people, and helps cause the slaughter of countless innocent people in many lands. Her support for fascist trade agreements hurts the workers in the US directly and indirectly, as well as the people of other places. Pushing fracking hurts people.

You think that it is debatable whether or not she is a radical?!?!?!

She is not Bush. Obama is arguably worse than Bush. Clinton will quite possibly prove to be worse than either of them. But that she is antagonizing Russia may be the most important difference between her and BushII.

After you get done informing wrknight of all that HRC has done for the people, please tell how anti-Clinton folks "are not comparing things fairly".
 
 
+2 # laurele 2016-10-30 22:09
Voting for a criminal and an election thief is "sense?"

No thanks, never, no way, no how. Lock her up! If she wins, I will primary her myself in 2020.
 
 
-9 # JPCT3 2016-10-26 07:06
This election is about the supreme court, period!
 
 
+2 # John Puma 2016-10-28 00:51
To e-block:

Two GOP senators, so far, have publicly stated what should have been obvious to outside observers: the GOP refusal to even consider Obumma's SCOTUS nominee is not an aberration and will be continued for any Dem president as long as the GOP keeps control of the congress.
 
 
+4 # RLF 2016-10-28 06:46
Obama's SCOTUS nominee, while touted as a real "law" guy is pro-corporate, pro-wealth, and just not progressive at all. There is a very good possibility that he would be voting with the right. He should be withdrawn now! I'm not sure Hill would do any better. She rich as hell and she is certainly pro-corporate. We might get someone who will preserve Rowe v. Wade but little else that is progressive!
 
 
+3 # John Puma 2016-10-28 12:45
I am aware of the political ideology of Obumma's SCOTUS nominee and fully expect equivalently poor one's from a president HRC.
 
 
+26 # Pikewich 2016-10-25 21:18
This is no exaggeration, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hillary will start a war with Russia.

https://youtu.be/8rpiqyGmQXQ
 
 
-4 # Cassandra2012 2016-10-27 14:20
And you really want to see 3-year-old-ment ality Narcissistic Personality Disorder Drumpf with his finger on the nuclear button?
 
 
+17 # Helen Marshall 2016-10-26 08:37
Forever might not be as long as you think if she takes us to war with Russia.

The true horror of this election is the totally unacceptable "choice" we are offered, constructed with DNC complicity to provide a candidate who would make it possible to ignore Clinton's multiple flaws, using the Trump supporters' alienation to do so, and the DNC determination to nominate her. There is "No Exit" to this that is very pretty.
 
 
+12 # wrknight 2016-10-26 21:20
Don't forget the MSM complicity in the Trump nomination. The RNC let MSM run the show with that one.
 
 
-16 # kyzipster 2016-10-25 15:36
How could I miss it hanging out at RSN. You folks remind me of the nuns in my grade school in the 1960s, guiding us to the hallway for bomb drills, instilling fear of Jesus and mushroom clouds.

Clinton will start WWIII, fact, conversation over. It's adolescent debate, utterly dull. Unlike Marc Ash who is undoubtedly aware of Clinton's flaws but makes an excellent case here for not wasting a vote on a candidate polling at 2%. An argument that does not make a case on gender.

Delusional is blaming the immorality of US foreign policy on the boogeywoman, Hillary, while thinking that a Trump or even a Sanders presidency would make much difference with the impossible scenarios in the Middle East. So much of it stemming from the actions of the last crazy, right-wing president we had. Sanders offered no solutions but I supported him anyway because of domestic issues, same with supporting Clinton over Trump because Stein doesn't have a chance in hell.

Nothing but a feel good vote for those who think they're morally superior to the realists of the world advocating for the only obvious choice for anyone who gives two chits about our future.
 
 
+19 # Pikewich 2016-10-25 21:18
This is no exaggeration, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hillary will start a war with Russia.

https://youtu.be/8rpiqyGmQXQ
 
 
0 # NAVYVET 2016-10-26 00:04
I am very surprised that anyone who longs for peace would trust the analysis of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff!

Always look for the motive. Personal dislike? Misogyny? Who knows.
 
 
-7 # Kiwikid 2016-10-26 00:51
One thing Hillary is not is stupid. Start a war with Russia? She's been in the politics for too long to think this a sensible option. What gain is there in that ?- for the world, for the USA, for her? She might do some sabre rattling, but I can't see her doing much more.
 
 
+19 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 04:35
I'm sorry, but how smart is it to sabre rattle with a nuclear power?

One thing that has surprised me this year, having seen Clinton so much, is that she is NOT as smart as I thought she was.

The Wikileaks emails show that Podesta was contacted by The Hill writer Brent Budowsky, who suggested it was impolitic to bring up ISIS because Clinton herself could be blamed for its creation. It made more sense to attack Russia because there was no blame attached to her and she could tie Trump to Putin.

So again I'll say, how smart is it to attack a nuclear power and, as Trump has done, tell people that the elections are rigged. Now whoever loses can claim the vote is inaccurate. I think we are all counting down to Nov. 8th, wanting this horrible election to be over -- but BOTH candidates have signalled that Nov. 9th will offer no resolution.

I have not much admiration for Trump -- I do like his truthtelling -- but I certainly thought Clinton could, and would, take the high road against him. She has not. At the beginning of the year I was for Bernie but reconciled to pulling the proverbial lever for Clinton if she won the nomination, but having watched her this year my opinion of her has plummeted.

I wish Clinton would surprise me. I wish she would show intelligence or vision or progressivism. I'd settle for a moderate politic, a good heart and a sound mind -- but I have yet to see that and it scares the hell out of me.

Never Hillary
 
 
+2 # laurele 2016-10-30 22:15
She didn't win the nomination. She and the DNC outright stole it from Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+9 # Capn Canard 2016-10-26 07:34
There is far more to the process than the president's word on a final decision. Our allies have a greater say than us mere plebes. And one ally with unmatched influence in the area wants Russia to be broken into many pieces, paving the way for a dismantling of all it's potential enemies. It is the long game, and now it is time to harvest.

Eyes open, no fear... be safe everyone.

.
 
 
-2 # Thomas Martin 2016-10-26 21:57
[quote name="Capn Canard"] "Our allies have a greater say than us" ... Captn, you present us with a puzzle, which is, according to your warning, one of identifying 1) a presumably strong ally of the US, 2) an ally with “unmatched influence in the area”, 3) an ally who wants Russia “broken up”, 4) an ally who sees itself as one of many “potential enemies” of Russia, and 5) an ally who will dictate our foreign policy with Russia?!? … do you have other clues that might be more internally consistent and make more sense? … sounds like nothing but fear-mongering to me, maybe based on your own personal fears and prejudices?
 
 
+9 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-26 17:16
The saber rattling began long ago. Now she is planning the next step in the regime change of Russia's key ally in the ME. Russia is there to defend said ally. How can the US accomplish this without provoking war with Russia?
 
 
+11 # wrknight 2016-10-26 21:22
Quoting Kiwikid:
One thing Hillary is not is stupid. Start a war with Russia? She's been in the politics for too long to think this a sensible option. What gain is there in that ?- for the world, for the USA, for her? She might do some sabre rattling, but I can't see her doing much more.

You say that Hillary is not stupid, but I say that playing "chicken" is stupid. So is playing Russian Roulette.
 
 
+2 # Ann M Garrison 2016-10-27 14:12
Poker too.
 
 
-2 # RLF 2016-10-28 06:48
Its one way to get rid of her husband in NY!:)
 
 
-2 # sagra 2016-10-26 23:52
[quote name="Pikewich" ]according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hillary will start a war with Russia.]
Please refer us to where the Chairman said "Hillary will start a war with Russia".
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-10-27 21:45
Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunford recently testified that opening a no-fly zone in Syria almost certainly promises a direct conflict with Russia. He was shouted down by Sen. John McCain.

In the third debate Chris Wallace quoted Gen. Dunford and Obama, who also says a no-fly zone is risky. Did you watch the debate? Clinton unequivocally insisted on it. She didn't bother to acknowledge the risk.

Now she is talking about mandating air space that ONLY the US can fly in, even though Russia, our ally, is flying aerial attacks against jihadists and despite Syria being a sovereign country. Why is the US deciding who can fly there?

Recently NATO expanded its territory to the Russian border when US assisted neonazis threw a coup against the elected government. Now NATO is conducting full scale war games on the Russian border.

A few months ago UN ambassador Stephanie Power said we would send Russians home "in body bags". How diplomatic!

Hillary Clinton is not going to write out a map titled "Evil Plans" with a big "X" on it for you. When you look at all the facts above -- do a search, it's all verifiable, lots of it even on videotape! -- please tell me what YOUR conclusion might be.

The Clintons are arrogant. They don't bother to hide their corruption, and the American public is getting ready to hand them the keys to the kingdom.

Last time they became millionaires. How long until they are billionaires? I'd say, not long.
 
 
+7 # John S. Browne 2016-10-28 06:07
#

And, since Russia is an invited "fly-guest" by the Syrian government, they have every right to fly there. Whereas the U.S. government, NATO and/or anyone else who is not invited to help defend the Syrian government, has no right(s) whatsoever to fly there, let alone create a "No-Fly Zone" there. All of the Western bombings there are completely illegal, and erecting a No-Fly Zone there would also be completely illegal. It is war of aggression (the West perpetrating the aggression), "the supreme international (AND U.S.) crime" under both U.S. and international law(s).

#
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-25 22:51
The president does have some power over issues of war and peace, and it's silly to pretend that the candidates are all exactly the same, just as it's silly to pretend that there's a huge difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans on most issues. Surely Bernie would not be quite as much of a war-monger as Hillary, and Trump seems like he'd be even more belligerent than her.

One thing that you and Ash are right about, and a lot of people don't seem to grasp, is that a vote for the Greens is purely symbolic, while a vote for the lesser evil will have concrete effects, and there are plenty of other ways of making symbolic statements. If the idea is to actually make the Green Party viable in this country, they have been going about it in about the most ineffective way imaginable, and if Stein voters just want to make a symbolic protest vote every four years while the world keeps going to hell, what's even the point? You're right, it's just to feel good about ourselves for not getting our hands dirty by exercising the tiny bit of democratic power we actually have in this country.
 
 
+12 # Capn Canard 2016-10-26 07:47
Yes... with a but. The democratic process of America is hardly democratic. In fact the idea of our republic has always been to limit the vote: first only land owning white males, then all white males, then women, then blacks pushed hard and won the right but are still being systematically erased from voter rolls. Natives are in a similar circumstance and most racial minorities are routinely blocked from the polls. And that is just a snapshot.

Stein and the Greens will be opposed by both the Dems and the Repubs but the Dems are very fearful of a competitor. Post Dem Pres. Bill Clinton our nation has taken a huge turn for the worse much is attributable to his actions/policies.

Our system can't be fixed in it's current configuration. The only thing that will fix it is a little revolution to scare the be-jesus out of the powerful, and so far TPTB are having success with dampening said revolution with unconstitutiona l usurping of free speech and obvious police state actions, and the MSM is dutifully silent or cheering on the elimination of civil liberties.

The American political system serves the wealthy and it is beyond broken.

.
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-10-26 08:46
Quoting Capn Canard:
The American political system serves the wealthy and it is beyond broken.

- we don't fix plutocracy by symbolic votes - as bernie says - we fix plutocracy by public funding - only - of elections - federal - state - and local

hill promises to appoint judges who oppose "citizens united" - within 30 days of taking office - to propose a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance - that's progress

if hill doesn't propose we fix plutocracy by public funding - only - we count on bernie to propose a better con-am
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:10
The undemocratic nature of the process is exactly my point. We have a very tiny bit of democracy in this country. We can choose to use our vote to decide which of two candidates will be president, or to make a symbolic protest that no one else really gives a shit about.
 
 
+10 # DaveEwoldt 2016-10-26 09:45
Matt_OccupyEart h, how can a Green vote be a protest vote while the world continues to go to hell, when the reality is that voting for either Democrats or Republicans is what has the world going to hell?

All environmental markers are continuing to degrade, and inequity is continuing to increase on a global level. I just have to ask, are you brain-dead, on drugs, or just asleep?
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:07
What I'm saying is that the Dems are sending us to hell marginally slower than the Repubs, and the only power you have in this election is to choose between those two options. If you deny that there is any difference whatsoever between the parties, then you are delusional. Substantial change only happens through direct action, and a Democrat would be easier for social movements to influence.
 
 
+9 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-26 17:22
You are right that the "world keeps going to hell". And this has been happening under both major parties. So why not vote Green? You are implicitly advocating that we send ourselves to hell.
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:14
I'm saying that under the Dems, the handbasket moves a little bit slower, so maybe we'd have a slightly better chance of saving ourselves through the real work of organizing and direct action.
 
 
+1 # wrknight 2016-10-26 21:25
Quoting Matt_OccupyEarth:
The president does have some power over issues of war and peace, and it's silly to pretend that the candidates are all exactly the same, just as it's silly to pretend that there's a huge difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans on most issues. Surely Bernie would not be quite as much of a war-monger as Hillary, and Trump seems like he'd be even more belligerent than her.

One thing I learned long ago. Don't worry so much about barking dogs. It's the dogs that don't bark that you really have to worry about.
 
 
+1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:15
Can you honestly say that you're certain that the Donald wouldn't drop a nuke on somebody?
 
 
+2 # laurele 2016-10-30 22:13
None of those polls should be believed, as they too are being rigged by the MSM in conjunction with the DNC. Jill's actual support is much greater than two percent.
 
 
0 # laurele 2016-10-30 22:14
Hillary and her supporters do NOT have a monopoly on what is "real." They use terms like "real," "realist," and "reality" in an Orwellian manner, presenting themselves as the only "real" option. Language has power, and this use of it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the voters. Don't buy it!
 
 
-9 # Caliban 2016-10-26 00:20
# Johnny -- HRC's Syrian threat was unwise for several reasons, but (if memory serves) the threat to attack/"obliter ate" Iran was conditional on Iran's going through with its threat to attack Israel and was NOT generalized beyond that condition.
 
 
+13 # Capn Canard 2016-10-26 08:09
What Iran threat to attack Israel? Given Iran's very limited history of war, that is straight up propaganda.

This anti-Iran model is ugly stupid. Iran should be our ally, but because they are an Islamic republic they are our enemy? What? Why? The only conclusion is Israel's war-like intentions toward any and all Muslim nations. A once erroneously discredited story told us that Israel wants the fantasy of a greater Israel. Presumably the entire Levant. They certainly don't have the population to occupy all of it, but the meme is that *breaking all nations in the region into smaller nations then managing all so-called "enemies" would be far easier.

We need to fully examine why Iran is such a threat when Iran hasn't started a war in over 200 years. Their last war, by the way, a war of defense, was against Saddam Huesien which they easily won. Iran during the Shah was a 1st world state with a well educated population. But the Shah's evil, vile Savak destroyed Iran.
Since that time Iran has become moderate and isn't a threat to the USA. But Israel doesn't like the fact that there is a stable, moderate, and relatively powerful Islamic nation who may seek to stop the ethnic cleansing/genoc ide that the Israel is actually doing to Palestinians.

And Hillary? HRC will only just do what Israel wants her to do. Just like HW Bush, Bill Clinton, W Bush, Barry Obama... they are all puppets playing their part.

Examine history and it will tell you the future.
 
 
+12 # Capn Canard 2016-10-26 08:15
*If I remember correctly, it was Gen Wesley Clark who tells of visiting the Pentagon and a colleague told Clark of plans for the USA to take out 5 nations in seven years: Lybia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. I don't have the link, but it is still on the webz... somewhere.
 
 
+7 # wrknight 2016-10-26 21:30
If you dig deep enough into the Pentagon you will find war plans for every country on earth. Canada included.
 
 
+13 # John Puma 2016-10-26 02:15
To Johnny:

Add Russia as per (edited) article below. It's a cogent an explanation of the US involvement in Syria.
-----------------------------

Hillary Clinton’s Strategic Ambition tinyurl.com/hc7pgb3

HRC has big ambitions, (kept secret from) the electorate, but which are perfectly understood by her closest aides and biggest donors.

She wants to achieve regime change in Russia.

She enjoys the support of most of the State Department, much of the Pentagon and Congress is ready to go.

The method: a repeat of the 1979 Brezinski ploy: luring Moscow into Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians bogged down in their “Vietnam”.

The new version is to use Russia’s totally legal and justifiable efforts to defend Syria from destruction to cause enough Russian casualties to incite anti-Putin reaction in Russia leading to his overthrow.

That is why the United States is doing everything to keep the Syrian war going. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive to recapture the rebel-held Eastern sections of Aleppo might lead to an early end of the war. U.S. reaction: a huge propaganda campaign condemning this normal military operation as “criminal”, while driving ISIS forces out of Mosul with attacks from the East, so that they will move westward into Syria, to fight against the Assad government.

Ukraine is another theater for weakening Putin.

Hillary Clinton’s ambition is to gain her place in history as victorious strategist of “regime change."
 
 
+8 # A_Har 2016-10-27 19:47
Quoting Johnny:
Like all Hillarybots, Kyzipster and Ash completely ignore Clinton's inconvenient promise to establish a "no fly zone" in Syria and to attack Iran. But, hey, what's a little thermonuclear war when you can elect the first woman president?
YEP, and RSN seems to have joined in the HRC chorus largely orchestrated by the DEM party and sung deafeningly by the MSM. Voting for Klinton is a vote for the status quo of the last 15 years--more wars, no corporate and banking accountability, more TPP, and TTIP and so on. And now we see Marc Ash himself writing a HIT PIECE against Jill Stein who is arguably and actually one of the few reasonable and HONORABLE candidates running.

The fourth estate seems to have died, and Marc Ash is in the funeral procession. You can't win for LOSING.

Meanwhile up above is yet one of the more pathetic months in the RSN fund raising arena. Could it be that the way they campaign for HRC has had an impact?? She and Trump both are not so popular. How the hell can RSN keep supporting her since it has been shown what a complete disaster she IS....I don't get it.

And if "winning" is about getting HRC as president....so mething is dreadfully WRONG.

I donated last month, but that's because I support the rebellion against the status quo in the COMMENTS SECTION. So many ridiculous articles in support of the psychopath Killary Klinton. It's too much to bear.
 
 
+62 # 74andstillaGadfly 2016-10-25 13:56
Diane Feinstein a progressive? Ouch
 
 
+5 # kyzipster 2016-10-25 15:33
You missed the point, completely. I was OBVIOUSLY suggesting that progressives could unseat establishment Dems like Feinstein. Working within the Dem party like Sanders did. It's an option and a good one.

It's what Tea Partiers have done, conservatives are much better at politics than liberals which is partly why the country is in such a sad state.

Stein is a joke but the Greens or the movement behind Sanders could have a future if people would stop pouting and get to work.
 
 
-5 # NAVYVET 2016-10-26 00:39
Kyzipster, I love your point of view, but disagree that Tea Partiers are better at politics than we are. In separate ways we are anarchists and so are they by denying the good sense of cooperation and shunning government. But more than anarchists, they are also people who are the opposite. In crises they need a Big Daddy, a magician who will touch the hurt and make the pain go away. They act like sufferers from shock, and that may be close to reality.

Liberals take crises in a somewhat different way. We form committees, cooperate, build unions, and I have never seen a better run campaign than our part of the city's Bernie campaign. People tripped over each other to volunteer! I'm an old white woman and I love my neighborhood. Yes, it's a bit run down, but among my neighbors (mostly black) in my 70 apartment building, church friends (mixed race), political action friends (mostly white) and sidewalk passersby who see the button I wear every day, BLACK LIVES MATTER, then stop for a talk, a handshake or a hug, there's a lot of humor, hope and working together around here. I don't know a single person of voting age who doesn't admire Bernie, or who's voting for Jill Stein, or Drumpf, or staying home. A lot of it is putting anger to good use through cooperation. That may be the result of being brought up in homes that were firmly disciplined but not violent--as I was. I don't know that there's one particular answer, but the times they are a-changin'. Finally!
 
 
-7 # kyzipster 2016-10-26 09:20
Very good points. I'm not saying that the Tea Party is better at politics than BLM or any other movement considered progressive. It's more about the last 30 years of the Conservative Movement. They began working for change in the 1970s, prior to Reagan, grassroots organizing, working to change every level of government. The Tea Party helped push the GOP even further to the right, largely in reaction to the failure of the Bush years. Conservatives still come out to vote in greater numbers, they're very passionate about their Culture War and every other issue that Fox News tells them to care about. At least in my home state where there are far more registered Democrats than Republicans.

It's complicated, it might also be what is leading to their destruction, their unshakeable unity, but they have changed the country in drastic ways over the decades. So many liberal leaning people just feel hopeless, act like victims. Especially at RSN. A lot of good has come out of this election year, all I sense at RSN is defeat. I think the future looks good for a progressive movement to make real gains. Trump's campaign might be a sign that the Reagan Era is finally ending, they're desperate for relevance.

At RSN, it's like Clinton will bring about the apocalypse, strangely like a far right forum in that way.
 
 
+5 # A_Har 2016-10-27 19:55
Quoting kyzipster:
Working within the Dem party like Sanders did.
OH....that worked out so well, and then they castrated him.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 13:12
I was living in CA when Feinstein was mayor of SF. She vetoed a pay equity bill because she said the city couldn't afford it. Another champion of women.
 
 
+66 # John Puma 2016-10-25 12:26
Actually some think the Green's achieving 5% of the vote - and the public funding that goes along with it - would go a long way towards building that infrastructure.

Can we expect an actual article about Jill Stein as opposed to yet another lecture to the Green Party?

Could RSN's continued shabby treatment be part of the poor polling for the Greens?
 
 
+3 # moreover 2016-10-25 13:23
I just attended a lecture by a political scientist about election forecasting and polling: the Greens barely register and there is no credible poll suggesting they might go above 2%. Wish it were different but looking at the existing Green infrastructure (our chapter here has monthly meetings with between 4 and 12 attendees) I am not surprised.
 
 
+41 # Ted 2016-10-25 14:33
All the more reason to continue our support and efforts to build the party.

As more and more true Progressives discover the values and policies (not to mention integrity that is NOT to be found within the dems) as laid out on the Green Party's website;

GP.ORG

I'm sure this recent surge of support will continue to build for years to come.
 
 
-4 # Cassandra2012 2016-10-27 14:26
Not at the risk of electing the orange-utan Drumpf and his know-nothing brown shirt/ storm trooper neo-fascists behind him! He is a walking, blathering megalomaniac and misogynist.
And unfit to be president.
 
 
+3 # John S. Browne 2016-10-28 06:10
#

So is "(S)Hitlery"!

#
 
 
+39 # DaveEwoldt 2016-10-25 17:36
I think that political scientist might want to find another field. The people who are saying Jill is only polling at a couple of percentage points are either ignorant or just making things up. Jill's polling ahead of Hillary among millenials. Polls of left-leaning groups show Jill at 31% or better.
Plus we have the problem of further Dem manipulation of polling data--the Podesta e-mails that show the Dems are deliberately using oversampling in their polling to make Hillary look better.
 
 
-18 # Kiwikid 2016-10-26 00:55
You're starting to sound like Donald
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 04:55
I find Dave to be one of the most intelligent, informed and principled commenters at rsn.
 
 
+1 # PCPrincess 2016-10-26 15:19
Please, do give your opinion, but do so with honor, dignity, and respect.
 
 
+11 # Sunflower 2016-10-27 00:06
Quoting DaveEwoldt:
I think that political scientist might want to find another field. The people who are saying Jill is only polling at a couple of percentage points are either ignorant or just making things up. Jill's polling ahead of Hillary among millenials. Polls of left-leaning groups show Jill at 31% or better.
Plus we have the problem of further Dem manipulation of polling data--the Podesta e-mails that show the Dems are deliberately using oversampling in their polling to make Hillary look better.


Wasn't Sanders given no chance by pollsters before the votes came in for him?

I expect Stein to do better than pollsters predict.

And, doesn't the fact that the dems didn't want to have Stein in the debates show that they are afraid of her ideas being heard by
the public?
 
 
+7 # Ann M Garrison 2016-10-27 14:09
The two corporate parties are so determined that Greens do not become a viable alternative that I can easily imagine vote rigging to keep them from reaching their 5% goal. As an active Green who has taken place in a number of campaigns, I have observed the absolutely determination of the corporate parties to keep us on the margins.
 
 
-8 # Cassandra2012 2016-10-27 14:28
Ideas? anti-vaxxer ideas, picking a VP that called Obama an "uncle Tom"? etc.
She is totally inexperienced; not ready for prime time, let her run for congress or even the Senate first and SHOW her mettle.
 
 
+4 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-27 19:27
We need integrity and humane values. We do not need one with fascist values and warmongering experience.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-10-27 22:08
Yeah, in a better world that's just what would happen. In a just world Bernie Sanders would be our nominee, and in a perfect world we'd have four or five intelligent, virtuous candidates interested in running the country well, preserving the integrity of our republic and serving the citizens.

But this is what we've got: one experienced but corrupt corporatist warmonger who believes in American empire; one narcissistic tacky know-nothing who does, however, tell the truth; one fried and ignorant candidate with experience, a few good ideas and a lot of bad ones; and an inexperienced candidate with good ideas, a concern for the 99% and a genuinely progressive agenda.

You seem to be ignoring the faults of the Democrat candidate, overstating the flaws of the Republican, blowing off the Libertarian and ignoring the Green. That is fine for Clinton as a campaign strategy but it is wrong of the msm to comply with any candidate's strategy. They have a job to do but they're not doing it.

Anti-Hillary liberals are never represented, HRC's problems (a desire for war, corruption and sponsorship by Wall Street, Big Pharma and the fossil fuel industry) are never mentioned.

We have shown you evidence that Stein is NOT, and never has been, anti-vaccinatio n. Your willfully ignoring rebuttal marks you as a dishonest conversant.

I don't think you have EVER made an interesting contribution, only short ignorant statements. Waste of time. Buh-bye!
 
 
+2 # John S. Browne 2016-10-28 06:22
#

You are so willfully-ignor ant that you (and the other ignorant people reading here who are the true bigots) will misinterpret this, but I am completely against racism, yet "Odrona" IS an Uncle Tom! I'm glad you don't like that, even though I feel very sorry for you that you don't like THE TRUTH. There are no doubt a lot of black Americans who are being completely honest and themselves saying that "Odrona" IS the Uncle Tom that he is. He's completely sold out to a mostly if not completely white globalist oligarchy, at least at the very top of the evil pyramid of global(ist) puppetmasters and dictators of the world), and an almost completely white Wall Street, etc., and he has sold out both white and minority Americans' human rights and civil liberties, and is helping turn the U.S., the West and the world into a totalitarian militarized fascist police and enslavement state, etc., so he most definitely IS an Uncle Tom; and it is NOT the least bit racist to state that, since it is nothing but the truth.

Ringgggg!!...

Cassandra, your brain (if you have one) is calling!!...

Are you going to wake up and come to the phone?!...

(Still waiting, and will probably be waiting forever.)

#
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-10-28 16:57
As a white I don't feel comfortable making statements like that, but I agree Obama has been a sellout.

He verifies that what is really happening is less about racism or sexism or anything else than it's about class.

We are in a class war.
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2016-10-29 09:35
#

What is an "Uncle Tom"? It is a black man who sells out his people in order to curry favor with the slavemasters. That is exactly what "Odrona" has done, and is doing. He is nothing but a puppet of the mostly-white globalist slavemasters, who are not only seeking to enslave minorities, but also to enslave everyone on earth under "Fourth Reich" global collectivism, the "New World Order (NWO)". His "people" are not only black Americans, but everyone on earth, and he has sold us all out; so, he IS an Uncle Tom, period, plain and simple. If he wasn't, he would unequivocally put his life on the line and defend the whole world, every skin color in it, every single last one us on planet earth, from global(ist) subjugation and enslavement.

On an un- or semi- related note, please go again read my comments on fascism in that other thread. I have added to it, and you may find it edifying:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/39768-the-fbi-isnt-done-with-me

#
 
 
+51 # economagic 2016-10-25 16:28
"Can we expect an actual article about Jill Stein as opposed to yet another lecture to the Green Party?"

A-bleepin'-men. And a moral lecture at that, since there is good reason to believe that Ms. Clinton does not even need our help at this point. Most of the year we have been granted the right to vote our conscience as long as it would NOT affect the outcome (i.e., in a strongly red or strongly blue state). But now that it may not make much difference in any state we are ALL guilty of moral turpitude.

I have not once lectured anyone else regarding who to vote for, much less insisted that people who disagree with me are either stupid or morally bankrupt. I don't even object to Marc's use of his editorial platform to editorialize for Clinton. What I object to is the very lack of civility and respect that IS supposedly banned in the Guidelines, on the part of trolls, readers who support Clinton, and now Marc in no uncertain terms.

Make your point -- tout your candidate's virtues. Make even the same dubious point every day. But don't demean those whose support you will need and with whom you will need to collaborate after this sorry-ass excuse for an election.
 
 
+7 # Ann M Garrison 2016-10-27 14:06
"And a moral lecture at that, since there is good reason to believe that Ms. Clinton does not even need our help at this point." Amen. Also a moral lecture meant to keep the Greens from meeting their critical goal of 5%.
 
 
+21 # suziemama 2016-10-25 23:17
Nearly everyone who organizes within the Green Party has tried organizing within the Democratic Party, myself included. There are local Democrats who want to shift the party, but the Democratic "leaders" refuse to budge. Really, trying to reform the Democratic Party is just a futile head-butting exercise. The Greens I know organize month after month, year after year, issue after issue. They do far more than just vote.

As far as a "safe vehicle for transit" the answer is Ranked Choice Voting, which eliminates any pressure to vote for "the lesser of two evils."
 
 
+17 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 04:59
Yes! We have heard this from other commenters as well. They have tried, at the state and local levels, to change the DP -- sometimes for years -- but have been shut down by party leaders.

This past year I wanted to assess the chances of changing the DP from within, and have come to the conclusion that it is a hopeless cause.

I think it's wise to try both methods -- trying to make the DP more progressive from within AND without, but after seeing this election unfold, I've determined that I personally will work outside the party.

Good luck to those who take the other approach.
 
 
+56 # Stilldreamin1 2016-10-25 13:10
We could do without a lecture. How can Marc Ash bring up 2000 as a justification for not voting for a third party? Nader made it closer but Gore still won the election- the supreme court stopped the count. We all know this- certainly Mr. Ash included. Why no mention of strategic voting. If you don't live in a swing state, a vote for the best candidate is without risk- unless everyone did it. Now that would send a message to the Clinton transition team that business as usual will not fly this time.
 
 
-9 # Colleen Clark 2016-10-25 13:21
If most of the Nader votes had gone to Gore the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the case and Gore would have won. Self-righteousn ess has no place in politics.
 
 
-4 # Johnny 2016-10-25 14:01
Quoting Colleen Clark:
If most of the Nader votes had gone to Gore the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the case and Gore would have won. Self-righteousness has no place in politics.

Now, there's a self-righteous rant.
 
 
-8 # Lolanne 2016-10-25 14:14
Quoting Colleen Clark:
If most of the Nader votes had gone to Gore the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the case and Gore would have won. Self-righteousness has no place in politics.

I don't know why you have negative numbers, Coleen Clark. My thumbs up eliminated one of them, at least. My reaction to Stilldreamin1 was exactly the same as yours. As one who remembers 2000 all too vividly, I do not intend to waste my vote this time as I did then!
 
 
-16 # SenorN 2016-10-25 16:01
How the blank can all you readers vote Colleen's comment down?! It is impossible for a rational person to disagree with her.

You should all look up "motivated reasoning." It's what Fox News employs, what the Tea Party takes advantage of, and what you who refuse to face the facts are definitely guilty of.

Please don't vote comments down just because you don't like the truth they point out!
 
 
+28 # economagic 2016-10-25 16:44
This is precisely the lack of civility and respect that I refer to above, and the arrogance I had decided not to mention. Who the heck are you to dictate the standards of rationality? That is for others, and I damn well qualify. Who are you to claim that only you and people who share your opinion and what you consider to be rational thought (which I dispute, with some serious credentials) are "rational"?

"Please don't vote comments down just because you don't like the truth they point out!"

Please take your own excellent advice.

(One false assumption in Colleen's comment is that the people who voted for Nader would otherwise have voted for Gore. With that assumption the argument is a tautology, so meaningless.

Election dynamics are complex; they appear simple only in hindsight. There are a number of other things that didn't happen that would have resulted in an unequivocal win -- or loss -- for Gore.)
 
 
0 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-25 23:08
This is like a microcosm of the overall fractured nature of the left and the reason we can never accomplish anything. It would be fantastic if we could just have a rational debate based on facts instead of all the ridiculous name-calling and belittling of each other.

That said, with all the facts in mind, it makes logical sense that there is some amount of "spoiler effect" with third-party candidates, and I think it is a pretty reasonable assumption that many more Nader votes would have otherwise gone to Gore than to Bush. Surely a lot of them would have stayed home if they couldn't vote for Nader, but how many Nader voters do you think would be within ten miles of George W. Bush? That doesn't make the election result the fault of Nader or anyone who voted for him, of course.
 
 
+12 # CTPatriot 2016-10-26 02:44
Considering that 200,000 Democrats in FL voted for Bush, far more than Democrats who voted for Nader, the meme that Nader cost Gore the election really needs to die. It won't. of course, because establishment Democrats like Marc Ash are always looking for ways to beat progressives over the head and herd us into voting for their lesser evil candidate. It's called enforced conformity and it guarantees that things will never change significantly.

So thanks Marc and all the CTR trolls for your service to democracy.

Count me among those who are no longer Democrats and who wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was running against Atilla the Hun. So my vote for Jill Stein is not a lost vote for Hillary. Sorry.
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:19
Those 200,000 are obviously right-wing Democrats. Is any Nader supporter right-wing? I didn't say that Nader cost Gore the election, in fact I specifically said that he did not. What I said is that simple logic tells us that the spoiler effect is real.
 
 
+18 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 05:06
It was determined after W was installed that Gore had actually won FL, so Nader didn't spoil anything. SCOTUS intervened inappropriately . Justice O'Connor has expressed regret for the action they took.

Many factors contributed to Gore's 'defeat', including the refusal of even ONE Democrat senator from standing up for him, the purging of thousands from voter rolls, losing his own state, thousands of Dems voting for Bush, etc.

Scapegoating Nader is an old and tired meme that dishonors a man who's devoted his life to improving the world for others.
 
 
-1 # E.V.Debs 2016-10-28 05:59
O'Connor didn't say the Gang of Five had decided wrongly. She said they shouldn't have intervened at all, because the decision lowered the public's opinion of the Supremes.
 
 
-7 # Kiwikid 2016-10-26 01:00
Mmmm, economagic, it seems that you ideas about what constitutes civility only flows in one direction.
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:21
If you're referring to me, please quote one thing I said that was uncivil.
 
 
+27 # Ted 2016-10-25 17:21
[quote name="Quoting SenorN:
How the blank can all you readers vote Colleen's comment down?! It is impossible for a rational person to disagree with her.


Colleen's comment is based on an ignorance of the true and documented facts surrounding the 2000 election. It is a falsehood, and therefore thumbs down.
 
 
-11 # bardphile 2016-10-26 05:43
Si, senor! Colleen's simple, fact-based reminder hits a very sensitive nerve on this site. For good reason, people don't like to take responsibility for their "principled" choice in '00, and the horrors that have flowed from it. I voted for Nader that year when CA was safely blue, but would have voted for Gore without hesitation had CA been "in play." The choice is tougher this time around, granted, but the analogy holds.
 
 
+31 # Ted 2016-10-25 17:06
Quoting Colleen Clark:
If most of the Nader votes had gone to Gore the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the case and Gore would have won. Self-righteousness has no place in politics.


If all the votes were counted (as cast) honestly and without manipulation by the repub wing of the duopoly party, even WITH Nader's votes, the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the case and Gore would have won.
 
 
+44 # DaveEwoldt 2016-10-25 17:22
Colleen Clark, there are a half-dozen good reasons why Gore "lost" Florida, and none of them include Ralph Nader. The 22,000 voters wrongfully purged as ex-felons is one of them. Another is the tens of thousands of Democrats who crossed over and voted for Bush.

The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for Election 2000. Bottom line: They ran a piss-poor campaign and then rolled over.
 
 
+24 # sus453 2016-10-25 18:48
Also, like Hillary, Gore (as well as John Kerry who followed him) was a wooden candidate. He came across, even to me who voted for him, as unlikeable and without passion.

"The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for Election 2000. Bottom line: They ran a piss-poor campaign and then rolled over." That is true.
 
 
+14 # Pikewich 2016-10-25 21:26
Colleen:
"If most of the Nader votes had gone to Gore the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the case and Gore would have won. Self-rigorousne ss has no place in politics."

Sure, as long as you assume they would have voted for Gore, ignore the fact the votes were not counted, the presidency was "awarded" to bush by the supreme court, and 22,000 folks were purged from the voter roles.

So saying Nader caused Gore to lose is not accurate.
 
 
-1 # E.V.Debs 2016-10-28 06:11
There were lots of reasons that Gore was declared the loser.

The voter purge, as documented by Greg Palast.
The "butterfly ballot" that gave Gore votes to Buchanan.
The abandonment of the recount, a response to the "Brooks Brothers" riot of imported congressional staffers.
The candidacy of Dave McReynolds.
The candidacy of Nader, despite his promise not to run in contested states.
The Gang of Five decision of the Supremes.
The flaccid response of Democrats to the theft.
 
 
+7 # jimallyn 2016-10-26 01:07
Quoting Colleen Clark:
If most of the Nader votes had gone to Gore the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the case and Gore would have won.

And if most, or even a few, of the 308 thousand Florida Democrats who voted for George W. Bush had voted for Gore, then Gore would have won. But they didn't: they voted for George W. Bush. Deliberate ignorance has no place in politics.
 
 
+8 # John S. Browne 2016-10-26 06:53
#

Why do you folks keep ignoring the facts, that you have no doubt heard time and time again, that GORE *DID* WIN?! The SCOTUS unconstitutiona lly stopped the recount, which it has been PROVEN if they hadn't done so, Gore would have won Florida, thus the Electoral College, and thus the election!! Nader had absolutely NOTHING to do with it!! The powers-that-be (PTB) wanted Bush in, and thus the SCOTUS brought it about for them!! The whole 2000 debacle was thus a sham, and putting the blame on anybody but the SCOTUS is what people are falling for being manipulated to do by the false-propagand a, thinking exactly like, and being divided and conquered just like, the PTB want and are quite-successfu lly bringing about; in fact, have already brought about!!

The U.S. is conquered by the corporate-fasci st globalists, and it is being turned into a totalitarian militarized fascist state according to plan and on schedule, along with the rest of the West!! The U.S. is apparently already fracked!! 9-11 and the responses to it have evidently sealed its demise!! By design, the U.S. is, along with the rest of the West, being brought under one-world government totalitarian collectivist enslavement, and the exact opposite of True Liberty and Freedom!!

I'm NOT by any means saying that we should give up, since we have the DUTY to try and turn things around, even though it does appear futile (which I'm also NOT saying it definitely is, but it certainly appears to be)!!

(Cont'd below)
 
 
+8 # John S. Browne 2016-10-26 07:23
#

I refuse to have any false hope(s)!! Most "Amerikans" are living in a la-la-land fantasy world where they keep holding out false hopes of "white-horse 'saviors'" like "Odrona" riding in and "saving the day", thus continuing to champion and vote for corporate-fasci st phonies who are anything but, and are the antithesis of, "saviors"; thus also supporting, being complicit in, and bringing about their own demise; and I refuse to be a party to ANY of that!!

It is OBVIOUS that we are living in the sunset of the U.S. as an ostensibly "free" country [not truly free, because it has been being prepared for being completely transformed into a totalitarian-fa scist collectivist state for a very long time now, little by little and slowly but surely, with our freedom(s) and liberty(ies) being covertly whittled away at for decades, and evil "Manchurian(ize d)", "al CIAduh(!)", globalist, corporate-fasci st leaders being groomed, selected and placed in office in all three branches of the government, and the U.S. government being steadily transformed into an international corporation run by completely brainwashed, soldout, corrupt, evil, fascist "C.E.O.s", who are almost nothing but "puppets on a string" doing the bidding of the ultimate evil deep state shadow government forces behind the scenes, the corporate-fasci st globalist "Fourth Reich" "New World Order (NWO)" bringing about the "1984-like" total domination, subjugation, enslavement and absolute control of the entire world]!!

#
 
 
+7 # John S. Browne 2016-10-26 07:44
#

Having (any) false hope(s) is living a lie!! We must totally face reality, and that is what I am doing!! I regret that it sounds "defeatist", but holding out false hope(s) is allowing ourselves to be brainwashed and to remain enslaved in the "matrix", the artificial "reality" that is using most of us to bring about destruction of the world!! Miracles CAN AND DO happen, but we are up against evidently insurmountable odds!! The global government corporation is mammoth and monstrous, successfully having totally brainwashed most of the U.S., Western and world population into believing in and living lies, such that they are willingly exploited, corporate-fasci st slaves, even preferring this artificial construct over reality; in fact, believing that all those who don't totally bow down to it are supposedly the "crazy" ones!!

Thus, the former adamantly don't want to, and fight tooth and nail against, coming out of the control-grid "matrix"; or, if they even partly come out of it, to go back into it entirely, preferring being poisoned (through artificial, genetically-mod ified and otherwise poisoned and poisonous "foods", etc.), dumbed-down, brainwashed and enslaved sheep living lies that they're "free" and "happy", etc., and that all those who face reality, don't live those lies, and who are set free by the truth, are supposedly the ones who are not happy and/or free!!

What a mad, mad, mad, mad world, eh?! And it is just the way the monstrous puppetmasters want it!!

#
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 13:17
I wish we had an FAQ that laid out all the reasons Nader didn't 'spoil' Gore's win, that Stein is NOT anti-vaccinatio n, that a vote for Stein is NOT a vote for Trump, the evidence that Clinton is pro-war, that HRC's SCOTUS picks won't be any better than Trump's, etc.

I am so sick of rehashing these tired false narratives over and over again.
 
 
+3 # John S. Browne 2016-10-27 03:09
#

Me too, and I can't tell you just how much I am such. I'm so tired of being surrounded by evil, phony and lying people [including counterfeit, so- called "Christians" who lie all the time; even though God's Word(s) in Revelation 21:7-8 and 22:11-15 make(s) absolutely clear that no liars whatsoever are getting into heaven], and being surrounded with mass- murder on an almost-unfathom able scale, and of most people acting like it isn't going on [of course, most of them probably don't even know that it's happening---no excuse(s) whatsoever for their willful ignorance], and/or like everything, except perhaps the problems in their own personal lives, is "hunky-dory"; or, at supposedly as good as it can be. Need I go on? Nope.

Except, let me give an example of being surrounded by liars: I went to my federal-governm ent-subsidized apartment manager to express concern about my next door neighbor making too much noise, banging around her apartment in response to my supposedly playing my music too loud, which I was NOT doing [I NEVER play loud music, but my neighbor acts like ANY playing of music, including playing it at low volume as I ALWAYS do, is supposedly "too loud" (and this, this insane professed-"Chri stian" neighbor, always does every time I play my music; and, in addition, she later retaliates by doing "knock-and-'run '" assaults on my front door in the middle of the night while I'm sound asleep {I have no way of proving it})].

(Continued below)

#
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2016-10-30 04:10
#

My also-professed- "Christian" apartment manager went to my neighbor and, first, illegally violated my confidentiality and privacy by telling the woman that I was the one who "complained", in violation of federal law(s); then, second, the manager lied "on my behalf" falsely claiming that I only complained because I was concerned about the well-being of the neighbor (not that I am not concerned with her well-being). I did not ask the manager, in any way, shape, form or fashion whatsoever, to lie on my behalf, and she is required by federal law NOT to divulge who complains, TO *ANY* OTHER TENANT(S); but this total hypocrite and nothing but counterfeit "Christian" violates the law like this all the time. In fact, she constantly discusses tenants business with other tenants; again, in violation of federal privacy and confidentiality law(s).

I have tried, time and time again, to reason with these people (including her maintenance man husband), and their bosses who are the owners of the apartment complex, a property management company in Colorado, about all violations of law that they are perpetrating, but I have been literally terrorized by the latter's attorney, threatening me with serious adverse action(s), seeking to shut down my exercise of my First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and duties to report violations of law, if I don't stop the exercise of those rights and duties completely.

(Continued below)

#
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2016-10-30 04:14
#

The lawyer has also admitted, on behalf of both himself and his clients, to illegally discriminating against me on the basis of my physical disabilities, by telling me that they will not legally recognize and/or accommodate my disabilities without my proving them to them with a "Request for Reasonable Accommodation" letter from a doctor. But, the ONLY party I have to prove my disabilities to, AND NO ONE ELSE, is Social Security, which was done over twenty years ago, and is renewed upon review every few years. Further, I am NOT legally required to provide any "Reasonable Accommodation" request letter from a doctor unless I need special accommodation(s ) of some sort, which I don't. In addition, they are REQUIRED BY LAW to accommodate and/or recognize my disabilities BECAUSE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT I LIVE IN IS AN ELDERLY *AND DISABLED* COMPLEX. And, lastly, the ONLY proof that I have to provide to the apartment complex that I am disabled, is my Social Security Disability award letters every year, which I do every year like clockwork. In fact, under federal law(s) governing and regulating USDA-Rural Development apartment complexes like the one I live in, it is COMPLETELY ILLEGAL for them to ask what my disabilities are, and to ask for proof of them other than the Social Security award letters.

(Continued below)

#
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2016-10-30 05:41
#

So, in essence, they are illegally trying to require me to provide a "Reasonable Accommodation" request to not be discriminated against! And this even though they are required by both state and federal law(s), to not discriminate against the disabled, without such a request! Their attorney is insane!

Thus, you see, this is the kind of evil that I am surrounded by, and is a prime example of the "legal" terrorism that this country has come to.

On an un- or semi- related note, please go again read my comments on fascism in that other thread. I have added to it, and you may find it edifying:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/39768-the-fbi-isnt-done-with-me

#
 
 
+7 # John Puma 2016-10-26 03:57
To C. Clark:

If, if, if ....

1) If Gore had managed to win his home state

2) If "Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) (had not) voted for Republican George Bush" -San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

3) If the FLA Sec of St hadn't purged 90,000+ likely Democratic voters

etc., etc.
 
 
0 # PCPrincess 2016-10-26 15:20
Quote:
If most of the Nader votes had gone to Gore the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the case and Gore would have won. Self-righteousn ess has no place in politics.
...and politics has no place in choosing our representatives .
 
 
0 # LionMousePudding 2016-10-26 22:29
Marc Ash brought up Nader as an example of the error of spreading the meme that both Rep and Dem candidates are equally bad. I was not very politic-savvy at that point so this is based on what I've read, but apparently part of the way Nader campaigned was to say that the other two party candidates were equal, which they were not. If anything that may have been the mistake that lost so many votes to the Republican side. Imagining that the parcel were the case here, as I believe Marc does, the idea is that if everyone thinks Hill and the D are the same, people will be confused and vote for the Republican. Continuing this train of thought, that's why so many Dems voted for Bush and we'll lose this election to Drumpf for the same reason: Because people are saying the two corporate candidates are equal.

Marc is of course of the mind that Hill is much better and when it comes to national issues I think it is facetious to argue otherwise. The problem is of course that pesky thing, war.

Anyway that's his point rather than that Nader votes spoiled the election.

As far as most of us are concerned we have lost the election whether Hill or Drumpf wins. We lost when Bernie was f---ed out of the primaries.
 
 
+4 # Ann M Garrison 2016-10-27 14:03
Yes. Any discussion of this without noting that there are 19 solid blue states and 19 solid red states and the blue states are far more populous, guaranteeing Hillary's win. Anyone carrying on about why we should vote for Hillary without making these distinctions is in fact trying to prevent the Greens from becoming an official national party proportionally entitled to the federal funding that Republicans and Democrats now get.
 
 
+3 # librarian1984 2016-10-27 22:21
Maybe THAT is exactly what this is about, why they insist we must all vote for Hillary. We MUST give her a landslide. We must all comply. They are trying to eliminate any third party presence in 2018 and especially 2020, when HRC will be seeking re-election, godhelpus, and they are worried about the progressive movement with which they were confronted this time around.

We've also heard Obama is going to devote himself to state races.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, AMG -- these actions are geared toward eliminating the infrastructure, including funding, of the burgeoning progressive movement.

SO, you people who are swallowing the msm/HRC/DNC narrative hook, line and sinker -- do you agree with that? Do you think progressives need to shut up and go along? Would you say your own beliefs are more centrist -- okay with military interventions, okay with corporate and WS deregulation, okay with austerity for 90% of the population -- or are you progressive? Do you believe in American empire? Are you okay with 52% of our discretionary budget going to the military? Are you okay with a trillion $ nuclear overhaul?

And are you really okay with the demonization of progressives, Trump supporters, Arabs, Russians, Syrians, Yemenis, Hondurans, etc. Is vilification the new Dem go-to? Is that what it means to be a Dem? Empire, war, hungry children, lots o' bombs?

What the hell happened to my party? What has happened to the liberals?
 
 
+1 # John S. Browne 2016-10-28 06:26
#

I know you were being rhetorical, but most of them, along with most of the "conservatives" , are being taken over more and more by evil.

#
 
 
+52 # moreover 2016-10-25 13:31
I just went back to a 2011 recording I made of Tom Hayden (who died Sunday). He was talking about the Long War, and how our military budgets are bloated beyond belief. This and our war debts prevent even willing politicians to move toward meaningful action on progressive agendas.
 
 
+28 # MidwestDick 2016-10-25 18:03
Thanks for bringing this up.
Whoever you vote for, it is a wasted vote if you don't go out Nov 9 and demand:
1) That your government stop fomenting wars and selling arms all over the world.
2) That it makes serious moves towards nuclear reduction and reigns in it's wasteful 3 Trillion $$$ "nuclear modernization" budget.
 
 
+39 # Johnny 2016-10-25 13:47
Ash is right. There is a difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is the Hitler who destroyed the civil liberties of the German people. Clinton is the Hitler who invaded Poland and Russia, and burned Germany to the ground. Vote for Jill Stein so you can look your children in the face in the few months remaining before Hillary incinerates them in the World War she advocates.
 
 
+23 # Inspired Citizen 2016-10-25 16:49
This is no exaggeration, according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hillary will start a war with Russia.

https://youtu.be/8rpiqyGmQXQ
 
 
-8 # Kiwikid 2016-10-26 01:04
Yeah right.
 
 
+71 # MichiganProgressive 2016-10-25 13:47
Strange that you never mention in your article, Marc Ash, that getting Stein's Election Day numbers up to 5% is in an of itself a worthwhile goal. I'm a Green who voted for Bernie Sanders in the Michigan Democratic primary.

I do NOT believe Jill Stein will be our next President. I'm not stupid. Most Greens are pretty smart people. We know that we need to build-up the Green Party in order for something like that to become possible down the road, and one way to do that is to get Jill Stein as many votes as possible on November 8th so that the Green Pary will have federal matching funds next time. It will take a 5% showing on November 8th. We need to do this. Please help, don't hinder! Thank you.
 
 
-14 # Brice 2016-10-25 19:19
I don't believe you Mich ... you saw it right in front of your eyes, how well Bernie Sanders did, he almost took over the Democratic party ... what part of the significance of that did you miss that you think you want to reinvent the wheel and try to develop a parallel party?

It's kind of like looking at a long journey you have to make and saying - we're all wearing Hiking Boots so "let's hike over the mountains" instead of boating down the river in a canoe? I don't get it.
 
 
+12 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-25 21:23
We also saw numerous instances and types of corruption that ended Sander's bid. We need to reinvent the wheel because the wheel is removed when the rider is not a 1%er.

Canoes going down the Democrat River are sunk unless they are pre-approved by the PTB.
 
 
+7 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-25 23:37
For any progressive candidate to win with any party, they're going to need all the progressives to vote for them, both the Greens and the Democrats, together. So until you can get everybody on the same page, it's almost pointless to discuss the pros and cons of working inside or outside the Dem Party. On the other hand, if progressives were all united, it wouldn't matter what party they chose to run with - they would win.
 
 
-12 # Brice 2016-10-26 00:31
I must be slow but I just figured out that most of the people on the Jill Stein bandwagon have their hearts in the right place, but they are like children - not able to think with their brains about political realities.
 
 
+9 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 05:13
It is easy to denigrate and demean people who disagree with you. Do you really think this is an epiphany -- that you've just realized that we are NOT evil, just stupid? Do you realize how insulting and unproductive statements like this are?

Why don't we just assume that even those who disagree with us might have some valid thoughts, might be decent people, might even be intelligent.
 
 
+3 # PCPrincess 2016-10-26 15:27
Dude, seriously. We get it. Okay? Let's end this. WE KNOW. The point you seem to keep missing is that continuously accepting the 'political reality' is F-ing us up big time.

It is time to stop 'accepting' the crap being thrown at us so they will FINALLY get the message that a growing majority of Americans will no longer be easy pawns of their constant propagandizing. WE get that this could mean four years of WTF. We also fully realize the REALITY that this is possibly what it will take to wake up the sleeping masses who still remain blissfully unaware of what is going on.
 
 
+13 # Pikewich 2016-10-25 21:32
But Bernie got cheated out of the nomination, did he not?

I am certain that any belief that real change we need can come from either of the establishment parties is fantacy. Thinking we can make that happen is purely delusional, as proven by the past 5 decades.
 
 
-13 # Brice 2016-10-25 21:44
-- But Bernie got cheated out of the nomination, did he not?

That's hard to say. I think one defining factor of the primaries would be because of non-Democrats, independents, etc wanting to vote for Bernie, but they could not because of the rules.

There were also a lot of people who heard about Bernie late and got in too late to register or change parties for the primaries.

All in all I think Bernie could have won the primaries, and possibly the election ( especially if it was against Donald Trump) if Americans could have expressed their will at the voting booth in the primaries.

I "feel" cheated, but I am not sure he got cheated out of the nomination, even with the hanky panky ... that is the way our elections have always been. Look at Bush v. Gore ... that still makes me sick, but somehow at this level of politics these things stick and there is nothing to be gained by going against it unless you can prove an overwhelming case.

Our system should be fixed, and I have a feeling people will be saying that in a hundred years too. The point is, if you want big change, you need to have a big huge majority. Bernie winning by just a few votes will not bring about the change we need ... look at Obama.

I tend to agree that things look kind of pessimistic, but look what happened with Bernie ... that was amazing. I think it can still go forward. I am giving and on the mailing list. I support Bernie, and even Bernie says this time we need Clinton.
 
 
+59 # 74andstillaGadfly 2016-10-25 13:51
Sorry Marc, I agree that I don't need a lecture right now. The reason I am not voting for Clinton is her no real commitment to climate change. Not properly addressing environmental issues Now is already too late. Millions of lives are and will continue to be endangered. Clinton's complete silence on the Water protectors in North Dakota is pretty clear that she is not interested in a healthy future for all living things on this planet. She has spoken for fracking, pipelines and more gulf oil exploration. throw in her hawkish military stands, lives are endanger just as you say.
I agree with your argument about the dangers of a Trump presidency, but the global climate crisis is just as bad if not worse. Yes, this planet will survive but all living things on it will not. We are past Peak Oil predictions and tumbling quickly into the abyss of greed and head in sand mentality. Green Party Jill Stein is the only one still standing that seems to see the disaster we are mired in.
I know she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected but provides a small opportunity for voters like me to say... enough! My conscious won't let me do less.
BTW I have never called HRC the devil, I have been very polite to friends who are trying to convince me to vote for her. Won't make a speck of difference if the First Woman President is elected to the tune of we girls are finally out of the kitchen but we all are still cooked.
 
 
-9 # Victhpooh 2016-10-25 14:23
How will those lives be if Trump wins, has the GOP agenda behind him and 3 or so Supreme Court justices in the image of Alito?
 
 
+24 # librarian1984 2016-10-25 14:42
Why do you think HRC's will be any better? Her VP is anti-choice! Kaine and Salazar are pro-business, pro-fracking, pro-Wall Street! How is that better?

Gadfly, I love your moniker .. and your thinking.
 
 
+8 # DD1946 2016-10-25 14:48
Kaine isn't anti-choice. He has his own personal religious beliefs that he feels should in no way come into play in his public office decisions.
 
 
+11 # djnova50 2016-10-25 15:00
Librarian, I have read that Kaine is pro-life for his own personal beliefs; but, he will abide by the law of the land and not try and inflict his belief upon others. There are plenty of other reasons to not vote for Clinton/Kaine.
 
 
+35 # librarian1984 2016-10-25 15:06
I've heard him say the same thing but he believes abortion is wrong. Who's to say what he would do if he became president, who he would put on the SCOTUS.

But besides that he is for TPP, fracking and WS. I don't know how he feels about war but that is enough for me.
 
 
-5 # Brice 2016-10-25 19:24
-- Who's to say what he would do if he became president, ...

Uh, I think Tim Kaine is to say, and he already said.
 
 
+26 # lfeuille 2016-10-25 17:06
Yes, but how vigorously would he defend Roe v. Wade. It is under constant attack. It takes more than just passively accepting it because it is the law. It has to be constantly defended from erosion by the RW.
 
 
-8 # carytucker 2016-10-25 19:02
Quoting lfeuille:
Yes, but how vigorously would he defend Roe v. Wade. It is under constant attack. It takes more than just passively accepting it because it is the law. It has to be constantly defended from erosion by the RW.

Here's a hint: Planned Parenthood rates him at 100%. Also overlooked, especially by people who refer to him as a 'bozo', is his stint with the JVC in Honduras. These are folks who actually act for the sake of justice in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. Not for them is the leisured life of internet imprecation and invective.
 
 
-9 # Kiwikid 2016-10-26 01:09
Perfect!
 
 
-1 # Cassandra2012 2016-10-27 14:34
And have you all forgotten JFK's similar beliefs??!
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-10-27 22:28
hahahaha

Tim Kaine is no JFK!
 
 
-19 # Brice 2016-10-25 19:23
Goodness gracious ... what is wrong with being pro-business? As one President said the business of America is business. Let's draw a distinction between Business, Free Enterprise and crony Capitalism please!

So, yes, Hillary Clinton will be much different from Donald Trump. Not as much as you and I and others would like ... not as much as Bernie Sanders ... not even as much as Jill Stein, but right now Hillary Clinton is the only one of all those names that has any chance to actually get in office.

And Hillary Clinton if she does let us down, it will be less and not as hard to clean up as if a hard-right Repubican does ... for example think about Citizen's United.
 
 
+9 # Pikewich 2016-10-25 21:40
Really?
" it will be less and not as hard to clean up as if a hard-right Repubican does"

We have too much to clean up from the last 6 presidents. Want more? really?

When do we get time to "clean up the mess" if we don't put someone in office who would clean up the mess?

And a "no-fly zone" over Syria? Shoot down Russian planes?

That is not who I want for president. Yes Trump is worse but getting enough votes to get a people's party going is our best hope for the change we must have, yesterday.

This article says polls show Stein at 2%. What I hear is 31% among millennials.

If true, it is their future we are discussing.
 
 
-13 # Jaax88 2016-10-25 21:33
gadfly: "My conscious won't let me do less."
In my view stated before on other threads
here is to support Hillary even considering her negative points. As for voting on one's conscience or principle at this time, let me ask a question. With the stakes at play of not electing Hillary is it responsible not to vote for her instead of Stein - Green? When there was a draft of men for the military the ways to avoid having to kill people in war was to run a way, claim conscious objector status (and likely go to jail) or go in a military service and become a medic. Each such person paid a price for their decision. What price does someone pay for not voting or for wasting their vote by voting for Stein who has little possibility of winning? I submit none. It is like when a person loses a game they say I am going to take my ball or whatever and go home, that is, quit.
 
 
-11 # Kiwikid 2016-10-26 01:14
Except that if the Donald becomes President, we've all got a problem. The rest of the world (where I live) looks on with a sense of wonder "this is a joke, right?" No it's not. Your vote effects much more than just the people of the USA. Please don't inflict the Donald on the rest of us.
 
 
+4 # PCPrincess 2016-10-26 15:32
Donald would not be 'inflicted' upon us if the DNC and the Democratic powers that be wouldn't have rigged the nominating process and stolen the election from Bernie Sanders.

Everyone knows Bernie would beat Donald soundly.
The progressives spoke very loudly during the nominations that we wanted a PROGRESSIVE candidate. We voted and those votes were ignored. A candidate was thrust upon us. What happens now is NOT OUR DAMNED FAULT.
 
 
-12 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-25 23:42
Everything you say about Hillary is true, but nonetheless, she is still measurably better than Trump on almost every issue. On climate, she says one thing and does another, but at least she doesn't deny the reality of human-caused climate change. We would have a much better chance of getting action on climate change with Hillary than with the climate denier Trump - even if she's in bed with the oil companies, she'll flow with the political winds like she always does, so if enough people demanded action, they'd probably get it.
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-10-26 00:11
The ones where she is worse are biggies. Peace or War.
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 21:54
I have no idea where people are getting the idea that Trump would be any less of a war-monger than Hillary. Could someone please explain this to me?
 
 
-4 # Cassandra2012 2016-10-27 14:35
Would you like cheese with that 'whine'??
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-10-27 22:30
What a waste of bandwidth. We really don't need rocback reruns.
 
 
+56 # Ted 2016-10-25 13:59
Extremely well written and by far the most convincing arguement to fall in line with the duopoly I have read yet.

Unfortunately, the premise is wildly off-target.

The current flocking to the Green Party's values and policies has very little to do with a contest between the individuals who are the faces of the parties. The vast difference between ideologies and priorities of the dem/repub party and the Green party, which are rarely if ever discussed by the the duopoly party talkingheads are what this is about.

I was actually offended that Marc would stoop to using corporate media poll numbers (proven to be tampered with by the wikileak of Podesta emails) in his arguement when he should know we could very easily counter those biased results with more targeted polls (meetwethepeopl e 31percent overall US, 46 percent California) that show a vastly different sentiment among impassioned voters.

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in building a stronger democratic party from the bottom up, which I see as fatally corrupt at the controlling top end.

For me, the Green Party is offering a clean, honest, fresh start, free of the deeply embedded corporate ties and their agenda.

Integrity, honesty, proper priorities and people-focussed policies are what I will be voting for this year.

The dems blew it. big time.
 
 
+12 # Pikewich 2016-10-25 21:48
Well said.
 
 
+54 # janie1893 2016-10-25 14:02
Don't vote for who you think might win! (I have never understood the logic behind this rationale).
Vote for the person or party that you want to run our country and keep on voting for them. Eventually they will win recognition.
 
 
+3 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-25 23:46
When is "eventually?" The Earth will be scorched in a few decades.
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 05:18
Yes, and Clinton has been busy pushing fracking on nations that don't want it, despite the process's negative effects, including increased methane and earthquakes.

The GP is the ONLY party with a sane, or even serious, address of climate change.

If the GP gets 5% or 10% or more of the vote, this signals that there are many people who want these issues addressed, and since Clinton looks to have the race sewn up, why would anyone be upset that progressives want to send that message?
 
 
-2 # Anonymot 2016-10-26 16:34
yes, and send me a mail at gmail.com
 
 
+1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 21:52
Because it's far from sewn up. The swing states are way too close right now.
 
 
+56 # Old Uncle Dave 2016-10-25 14:14
Over 90% of the female tennis players stand no chance of beating Serena Williams. Should they not bother to enter the tournaments?
 
 
-17 # kyzipster 2016-10-25 16:04
Sanders entered the tournament and lost (or whatever), and is now giving good advice on how to move forward.
 
 
+28 # Inspired Citizen 2016-10-25 16:51
Yes, "good" advice if you want a war with Russia.

#JillOrBust
 
 
-13 # Jaax88 2016-10-25 21:46
That is speculation and highly dubious at that. Tell me why Hillary or any American, except some disturbed general, admiral or fool would want a nuclear war with Russia?
I assume you are kidding.
 
 
-9 # Kiwikid 2016-10-26 01:17
You're onto it Jaax.
 
 
+9 # Pikewich 2016-10-25 21:50
Good advise....

with the exception of backing the corporate-estab lishment democrat presidential candidate.
 
 
+20 # alan17b0 2016-10-25 14:18
I live in Maryland, where HRC has a 30 point
advantage over DT. Hence I have a Free Vote(TM).
I plan to vote for Jill Stein, and am urging others
in my community to do the same. HRC can afford
to lose 10 points of her advantage, and perhaps
we can build the Greens here to get 5% oe 8% of
the vote here.

This argument applies to many many states; e.g.
MA, NY, CA, IL, . . . A test: if neither HRC or
DT are campaigning in your state, then your state
is either solid Blue or solid Red, and you have
a Free Vote. For those living in Pennsylvania,
North Carolina, or Florida, drop Jill Stein like
a hot potato, and beet the bushes for Hillary.

Alan McConnell, in Silver Spring MD.
 
 
+36 # djnova50 2016-10-25 15:02
If you want to help the Green Party make progress and you are planning on voting for Jill Stein, there is no reason to vote for anybody but Jill Stein, no matter what color your state.
 
 
+37 # Patriot 2016-10-25 15:15
Humbug! Whichever state you're in is firmly in the grip of the duopoly. Vote for what you want: for the government you want &the nation we're supposed to be, for our Constitution, for the health of our planet & the cessation of war. Never mind what color the Demopubs call your state! Vote for what's important to YOU.Don't be afraid: Go for the things that matter to YOU. If every voter would do that, we just might achieve some of those things.

Saying you can't vote for someone who can't win will only make it IMPOSSIBLE for that person to win. Saying your vote doesn't matter so you won't cast one will MAKE your vote worthless--beca use you won't USE it.

Marc, I told you, this isn't our first rodeo, either. We ALL hope Trump will be defeated. That doesn't mean we have to endorse a liar & cheat just to keep him out of office. If we don't support the things we believe in NOW, when will we? In 4 years? In 8? Can we SURVIVE 4 more years of the sort of government we've had for the last 30 years? Neither Trump NOR CLINTON will do anything for the99% besides toss us a crumb if we become too restless.

Vote for Stein, who's running on almost the same platform Sanders ran on--read it at go.org--& is as honest & dedicated to Progressive government as he is. Vote for all other Green & Progressives on your ballot, so the government you really want will have support from your town to your state government to Congress--& the Progressive in the White House--Jill Stein.
 
 
+27 # librarian1984 2016-10-25 16:08
I'm in a swing state and you couldn't pay me to vote for Clinton. My beliefs are solid and there is no way I can vote for a corporatist warmonger -- no matter what my zip code is.
 
 
-15 # carytucker 2016-10-25 19:11
Quoting librarian1984:
I'm in a swing state and you couldn't pay me to vote for Clinton. My beliefs are solid and there is no way I can vote for a corporatist warmonger -- no matter what my zip code is.

No one wants to pay you to vote for Sec'y. I'm sure Sen Sanders gave up months ago trying to persuade you to do so. I hope you find joy with the 2 per-centers, because that's your Green Party constituency. Also, Sen Kaine is precisely not anti-choice. Someone personally opposed to abortion who nonetheless supports Roe v Wade in all of its manifestations and articulations is about as pro-choice as is possible.
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-10-26 19:15
Quoting librarian1984:
I'm in a swing state and you couldn't pay me to vote for Clinton. My beliefs are solid and there is no way I can vote for a corporatist warmonger -- no matter what my zip code is.

- I'm in a swing state and you couldn't pay me to vote for jillie. My beliefs are solid and there is no way I can afford to throw away my vote. this election is too important for progressives - we cannot afford more uuuge tax cuts for the rich - we have carried plutocrats far too long already
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-10-26 19:18
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting librarian1984:
I'm in a swing state and you couldn't pay me to vote for Clinton. My beliefs are solid and there is no way I can vote for a corporatist warmonger -- no matter what my zip code is.

- I'm in a swing state and you couldn't pay me to vote for jillie. My beliefs are solid and there is no way I can afford to throw away my vote. this election is too important for progressives - we cannot afford more uuuge tax cuts for the rich - we have carried plutocrats far too long already

- moreover if plutocrats had to pay their fair share of taxes - we would have far fewer wars
 
 
+7 # Patriot 2016-10-26 20:09
Please don't tell me you think Clinton will raise taxes on the rich? Oh, boy.

Dream on!
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-10-27 12:04
Quoting Patriot:
Please don't tell me you think Clinton will raise taxes on the rich? Oh, boy.

Dream on!

- what is that supposed to mean? - do you suppose rump won't massively cut taxes on the rich? - did rump lower his more massive tax cuts to massive tax cuts acceptable to ryan? or not? look it up!

hill will only raise taxes on the rich if we elect more progressives along with her - okay?
 
 
-31 # Victhpooh 2016-10-25 14:20
Thank you Marc, for the guts it took to praise Hillary and point out that Stein is not ready to be president. It seems to me that a lot of people are 'for Stein' because Bernie lost. Jill Stein is NOT Bernie Sanders. If she was, he'd be supporting her. As sorry as I am that Bernie lost, I'm not about to vote for someone who is just simply not ready or able to be president and hasn't got a chance. I'm also disappointed with her VP choice who has said some anti Semitic things and has called Bernie Sanders a 'white supremacist'. The first choice you make as a candidate is choosing a competent and qualified running mate and in my opinion, she failed 'bigly'. I'm voting FOR Hillary and at the same time, AGAINST Trump.
 
 
+46 # librarian1984 2016-10-25 14:29
And Hillary's VP is anti-choice, pro-TPP, pro-Wall Street and pro-fracking, while HRC is pro-war.

How is THAT not a problem?
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-10-27 17:06
Quoting librarian1984:
And Hillary's VP is anti-choice, pro-TPP, pro-Wall Street and pro-fracking, while HRC is pro-war.

How is THAT not a problem?

- kaine is serious progressive - kaine is no problem

kaine is not anti-choice - as i'm sure you know - render unto caesar - not personally - but as senator - he supports roe v wade

hill and labor oppose tpp - so we should count on kaine to oppose it too

kaine is not pro wall street - he's pro consumer - like warren

it's too late to stop fracking altogether - gas powers america and gives us a huge competitive energy cost-advantage over the rest of the world = we can only hope to control and limit cheap natural gas - it's what killed king coal - if you care to look at the bright side - we no longer produce coal

without nit-picking? how is kaine a problem?
 
 
+21 # economagic 2016-10-25 16:53
I'm stunned but delighted that you understand my mind better than I do. See "disrespect" and "arrogance" above.

I really hate to argue this way, but I am tired of responding with reason to silly-ass speculations about what I think and why, when I have been laying it out in pretty well reasoned terms for 8 months or so.
 
 
+18 # Pikewich 2016-10-25 21:56
" It seems to me that a lot of people are 'for Stein' because Bernie lost. Jill Stein is NOT Bernie Sanders."

Nahhh.... We are not voting for Stein because Bernie lost. Stein is not Bernie, you are right.

She is a much better choice.

The Green Party platform is what we need. Take the time to go read it.

Rebuild the values and infrastructure of the US by using the pentagon's previous budget.
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-10-26 19:41
Quoting Pikewich:
Rebuild the values and infrastructure of the US by using the pentagon's previous budget.

- yeah! that has as much chance as jillie! - queen of pointless gestures!
 
 
-42 # elizabethf 2016-10-25 14:31
A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump.
 
 
+39 # Ted 2016-10-25 14:37
Wait! Wait! My turn!

Eating an Apple is actually eating an Orange!

No, thats silly, let me try again...

A Tree is a Car!

How's that?
 
 
+32 # djnova50 2016-10-25 15:05
Ted, you are funny; but, I do understand the logic that you are presenting here.

We have 4 national party candidates. One of them will be elected. With all the demonizing that has been going on, I don't think it will be Trump.

Clinton will win much like she won the primary/caucus season; but, that is not a good reason to vote for her.
 
 
+33 # Ted 2016-10-25 16:26
I agree.

For many reason I believe clinton has it in the bag and has had it in the bag for a long time now.

But our obligation and responsibility as citizens of a Democracy goes far beyond an hour or two at a voting computer (that is probably already pre-programmed for a specific outcome). They put us through this charade to make us believe we actually had a say in the matter and so will willingly accept the consequences of our actions.

Hold the next president's feet to the fire they're saying?

ABSOLUTELY. We should be doing that every day of every year.

I am choosing to do that now by strongly and loudly supporting a Party whom I can TRUST, a Party whose values, policies and priorities are true to our most pressing current issues, a Party that is in a position to carry the torch of the overwhelmingly populist ideals that Sanders has lit for us.

I strongly encourage other Americans to learn a little bit about the proud and sensible positions of the Green Party and to decide for yourselves whether the strength, honesty and ideals of the Green Party are what YOU want for our country, or if you are content to allow the moneyed shadow government that has been destroying our nation (as well as the countless lives of innocent citizens of so many other nations) to continuing using and severely abusing us in this mockery of a democracy we are currently suffering in.


Jill2016.com/plan

GP.ORG

gp.org/ten_key_values_2016
 
 
-5 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-26 00:02
To say that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is mathematically inaccurate, but a vote for Stein is essentially an abstention, meaning that you choose not to participate in the decision between the two choices the establishment is offering us.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 05:20
It also means the two main party candidates are totally unworthy of the office and a voter cannot bring themselves ro participate in this travesty of an election by supporting either one.
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:34
Right, or in other words, you don't want to get your hands dirty and end up feeling bad about yourself because you checked a box next to the name of someone you despise. It's not like there's an organized boycott of the election or anything. What good does a protest vote do other than make you feel good about yourself?
 
 
-5 # kyzipster 2016-10-26 10:33
It's simple mathematics that proves that our voting choices impact the outcome of an election. Both arguments are true, it can't be denied imo.

I support people voting their conscience as I will vote mine but denying cause and effect should be called out. If a person can live with a Trump presidency, if they truly believe that Clinton is just as bad or even worse, they should own it.

Some people on here who live in solid blue states justify their vote for Stein because it's not risky. At least it's an acknowledgment of the truth, that votes do matter in swing states and that enough votes for Stein or anyone else but the only competition, can put us at risk of a Trump win.

If a liberal can live with that, I find that interesting but I won't condemn it because I understand the evils of the establishment, but please don't tell us that our arguments are flawed when it comes to what a protest vote can mean at the end of election day. It's simple mathematics.
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-10-26 13:26
I do own it. In my opinion Hillary is worse because Hillary = war. Therefore I can vote for Stein without worry. If she 'spoils' Clinton's win that would be just fine with me.

Trump is a joke. No one from either party will work with him and he'll be out in one term. Clinton will have us deeper in wars while she and Bill become billionaires.

An added bonus would be having all that oligarch money lost to them. I want to send the message that we will not take just any crap candidate they foist on us. Who have they got lined up for 2024, some mini-Hitler clone sitting in a vat?

Besides, Clinton is ahead by double digits -- so why do her supporters keep browbeating us to vote for her? She doesn't need us, she doesn't want us and she hasn't made the slightest effort to court progressives.

If we vote for her anyway she has ZERO incentive to do anything progressive. If she beats Trump by 8 points and 5% of the vote goes to Stein, then in 2020 when she is up against a better candidate she would have an incentive to bargain with the progressives.

If we vote for her anyway, demanding nothing, she has no reason, ever, to make progressive concessions.

I am flabbergasted that Clinton supporters have made absolutely NO demands of her. You didn't even get a pro-choice VP! Clinton gives nothing without a fight, and her supporters have asked for NOTHING. Her uterus is compensation enough I guess. It is not very smart political strategizing.
 
 
-6 # kyzipster 2016-10-26 13:47
I do respect you owning it. I just have a problem with denying that votes do matter in swing states.

I personally don't brow beat, I try not to, but I see nothing wrong with making a reasonable argument like Marc Ash has done. We could just as easily say that Stein supporters are brow beating other liberals. We're constantly shot down with images of mushroom clouds, death and destruction in Hillary's wake. It's just a silly forum, somewhat stimulating but everyone has made up their minds here.

I may not agree with the strategies of establishment Dems but I understand much of it. She picked a more conservative VP to appeal to conservative voters, I think it's BS, conservative voters aren't swayed by such a transparent move. I agree it's bad politics, it's right out of the 1990s at the height of the Reagan Era and that's why I supported Sanders. It's time for progressives to own progressive ideology and challenge the establishment because I think voters are ready. I don't agree that Stein is a measurable challenge in this election.

I don't buy that Trump will get nothing done. His tax and deregulation proposals are right in line with Paul Ryan. Hardly anyone is talking about it with his sexual abuse sideshow. It's the extremism of the GOP that Obama has held back these last 8 years with his veto pen, I believe Clinton will do the same. What we don't need is trillions more in debt for a more progressive future to unfold.
 
 
+6 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-26 20:15
The mushroom clouds are feared but uncertain. The "death and destruction in Hillary's wake" is factual.
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 21:48
And you think you would get less death and destruction with Trump? He sounds like he can't wait to start bombing anyone and everyone.
 
 
-2 # Anonymot 2016-10-26 16:37
They're not very smart, just deadly send me an email: @gmail.com
 
 
-5 # kyzipster 2016-10-26 18:48
Ah yes, the morally and intellectually superior stance. You lose with this one and you're not bright enough to even see it.
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-10-27 12:07
Quoting Ted:
Wait! Wait! My turn!

Eating an Apple is actually eating an Orange!

No, thats silly, let me try again...

A Tree is a Car!

How's that?

- ted - you're getting in over your head - stick to fruit
 
 
+3 # John S. Browne 2016-10-27 12:45
#

Nevermind, be gone, fruitcake shill-troll!

#
 
 
-7 # Robbee 2016-10-26 19:48
progressives cannot justify enabling conservatives to win - that represents the opposite of progress - regress - that enables bad government - that harms the vast majority of citizens

progressives who run against other progressives - other than in primaries - help conservatives win

those who claim that hill - not rump - would war on russia - or that hill - not rump - would cut taxes on the rich - play a terrible game with women - blacks - latinos - working poor - middle class - non-christians - and environment

during the past year+ - 3 progressives ran against each other in dem primaries - o'malley, bernie and hill - had jillie run too - then voters would have gotten to know her name and her politics

today jillie is the "stealth candidate" - the vast majority of voters will read her name on a ballot and wonder - who's she? - the fact that jillie remains practically unknown is directly due to one, and only one, person - jillie

it is too late for jillie to see the wizard - to find heart and courage -

automatically jillie gets another 3 years to find the heart that went missing in 2015

if you spot the way the wind is blowing today among jilliebots here on rsn - they are all growing eager to kiss rump - lie down with jillie and you wake up with rump

progressives should unite to vote in progressives - not just hill - and call lame-duck session congress - urging them to oppose tpp - go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
-24 # Henry 2016-10-25 14:39
Ya know, there is such a thing as manners. You come to Marc Ash's house and then you complain about the hors d'oeuvres. He's not forcing you all to eat them. He's offering what he thinks is good – and there's quite a range of articles and opinion pieces here. Take what you like and leave the rest. Or seek elsewhere.
 
 
+35 # dbrize 2016-10-25 15:01
Quoting Henry:
Ya know, there is such a thing as manners. You come to Marc Ash's house and then you complain about the hors d'oeuvres. He's not forcing you all to eat them. He's offering what he thinks is good – and there's quite a range of articles and opinion pieces here. Take what you like and leave the rest. Or seek elsewhere.


You just can't cure stupid.

RSN is a "news service" that invites reader participation and critique. In this instance Ash is offering an editorial opinion which is open to criticism and is receiving plenty of it.

If this upsets you take your own advice and your sorry analogy and "seek elsewhere".
 
 
+32 # economagic 2016-10-25 16:55
Sorry, that's the same bogus "America, love it or leave it" nonsense that people with no manners told my generation when we were protesting against racism in the 60s and the Viet Nam war in the 70s.
 
 
+26 # sus453 2016-10-25 18:42
"Ya know, there is such a thing as manners. You come to Marc Ash's house and then you complain about the hors d'oeuvres."

Henry, you're right - this is indeed Marc Ash's house, but it's being paid for with our money. So if I don't like the pro-Hillary diatribes, I will complain as I see fit.
 
 
+9 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-25 19:59
...and where the election is concerned, it isn't much of a "range".
 
 
+10 # lfeuille 2016-10-26 00:19
Marc Ash invited us to comment on all the articles. He brags about RSN being a place where you can talk back to the pundits, or something to that effect. He had to know that would bring criticism.
 
 
+48 # carlsoncha 2016-10-25 14:44
Marc,
Your argument being based on viability ensures we will only and ever have two viable parties. Someday, we need to break the two party monopoly and join the rest of the world which has 3-4-5 competing parties and thus more ideological choices to be made at the poles.
 
 
+38 # Ted 2016-10-25 14:54
Excellent point.

To attempt to reduce the implications of this elections to simply clinton vs. trump, when we all realize there is SO much more to this complex game we play, is really just insulting.

Breaking up the two-party system.
Restoring voting rights for all.
SECURING our elections against manipulation.
Remove bribery from politics in ALL its forms.
Demand responsible media.
Demand responsible stewardship for the only planet we have.
On and on...

Or we can pretend it's a popularity contest.
 
 
-19 # Brice 2016-10-25 19:26
The real thing we need to do is not replace or add to the parties we have today, but to make those parties work.

Look at the corrupt dysfunctional Republicans, and look at what supports them in place ... the media they own for the most part, private businesses that can spend as much as they want, rules that weaken the unions, it is not the machine that is broken, it is the people operating it, the people we have ceded control over by bickering with each other while the world runs way our ahead of us.
 
 
-9 # kyzipster 2016-10-26 11:38
I don't read that in Marc's article. It's only about this election and Stein is making little impact.

IMO, a progressive movement needs to happen with alternate parties and within the Democratic Party.

Sanders represented a solid liberal district as an independent socialist for years. There are other districts in the country where Green Party candidates and independents could make gains by challenging establishment Democrats but there are probably more districts where change will have to come through the Democratic Party, like in the South and other solid red districts.

Sanders would have had little impact running as an independent. He was wise to run against the Dem establishment within the establishment in this election cycle. In the future, that could change. The Greens first need to make an impact in Congress and in local elections, it could take years. Right now, they're barely on the radar.

The whole idea that this election will determine the future of the Green Party is very limited, it will be over soon, Stein is polling far behind the Libertarians and Sanders has become a familiar face in the media because of his success running as a Dem candidate. Even the word 'socialist' is out there in a positive way, making people think. That's a huge shift.
 
 
+38 # EdWStGeorge 2016-10-25 14:49
I, too, am getting sick and tired of all the phony liberals saying we have to stop Trump! NO- we have to stop Clinton!!
I've said it before on this and other sites - Trump is a narcissistic sociopath indeed -BUT - HE NEVER KILLED ANYONE! Clinton's husband, the sexual predator, killed thousands of innocents in Serbia, and Madame Secretary herself is directly responsible for over half million deaths of innocents in Syria and other countries. She will start her Presidency by immediately confronting Russia and China instead of joining them in destroying international terrorism.
Trump is an ignorant man and merely stated "Why can't we sit down and work with Putin to destroy ISIS?"
If he knew our history, he would have expanded this by using two glaring examples of such - one, the many meetings and eventual nuclear arms pact signed by Reagan and Gorbachev - and MOST IMPORTANT- the meetings between Roosevelt and Stalin that cemented our joint victory over Nazi Germany!!
EVERY SINGLE NEOCON and HAWK responsible for the mass murder of millions throughout the world over the past decades are supporting Clinton!! What does THAT say about who can be trusted with nuclear weapons! Lastly, let us who are older and wiser remember the TV ad showing the little girl picking a daisy and counting backwards -leading into a mushroom cloud - indicating that Goldwater would lead us into war. And who was it that led us into the Vietnam disaster that killed over two million Vietnamese and others?!
 
 
+18 # wrknight 2016-10-25 18:20
Furthermore, Trump will be a one term, impotent and embarrassing president. He would not have the support of Republicans in Congress and he would never get re-elected in the Republican Party.

In that vein, I would much rather have a useless, powerless, stupid and embarrassing president than a competent and malicious president who is determined to drag us deeper into war and squander our national wealth and our children's future spreading the pseudo-religion of democracy by fire and sword.
 
 
-10 # kyzipster 2016-10-26 13:16
You can call me a phony liberal, it doesn't make it true. My position means that I have a different opinion and that you have a meaningless purity test.

IMO, Trump could be a 2 term president, George Bush is proof of that. Even if he gets one term, I believe he will get his tax cuts for billionaires and corporations and the deregulation he's campaigning on because he will have a willing Congress. In fact, it's the one part of his agenda he will pull off. It doesn't matter that the debt is estimated at $20 trillion, Republicans are nuts and they just don't care. They're still convinced that trickle down economics will solve all of our ills, Saint Reagan is all the evidence they need.

I know, I know, since Clinton will start WWIII, all arguments are off the table. Bollocks.

Maybe that makes you a phony liberal.
 
 
+9 # virtualaudio 2016-10-26 15:11
Quoting wrknight:

In that vein, I would much rather have a useless, powerless, stupid and embarrassing president than a competent and malicious president who is determined to drag us deeper into war and squander our national wealth and our children's future spreading the pseudo-religion of democracy by fire and sword.

Right after 9/11, I dug very heavily into the NET and found the infamous 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' by PNAC.. long before the media ever mentioned PNAC & the neo-con clique, I read this and other materials, and realized why W wanted to hit Iraq.
I also remember an excellent article delving into the hawkish notion of 'The Great Game'.. geo-political power & resource driven imperialism at it's best. And one of the top 5 people to subscribe to this world view was.. HRC. She was quoted in several articles at the time using that phrase in it's imperialistic context.
I had hoped she had changed, but the evidence does not bear this out.
While I do not want Trump, I can't abide HRC & team. They have no incentive to fix our broken system, & the Dems in general have lost their way. I am also surprised that HRC is not as smart as I thought.
I find this 'practicality' argument silly. Nothing will ever change if we the people do not seek & support change at every opportunity; IMHO this includes getting the Green's numbers up while not rewarding the Corporate Dems that corrupted the primary process, then ignored Bernie's progressive wave..
 
 
+35 # djnova50 2016-10-25 14:50
Okay, Marc, do you by any chance get campaign updates from the Stein/Baraka team? Are you aware that according to what was found in the Podesta emails, that there is a way to skew the poll results to show Clinton was much more favorable leads than what might actually be true? Do you know that Jill Stein is extremely popular among millennials, artists, and left-leaning voters?

For example, the artist's network Accepted ran a poll of its members and Jill Stein came out on top at 40%, beating Clinton, Trump, and Johnson. Then there is a downloadable app called MeetWeThePeople . The polls of its members range from 31% of the vote for Jill in the US overall and nearly 46% of the vote in California. In most of theirs, she is showing to be well ahead of Hillary Clinton.

Ever hear of "oversampling"? Oversampling means that the campaign is having its paid pollsters interview more people in a particular group or groups, like groups that favor Hillary Clinton.

At least when I cast my vote for Jill Stein, I will not have to bite my tongue, hold my nose, or whatever it is other non-Hillary supporters have to do in order to cast their votes for her.
 
 
-19 # UT educator 2016-10-25 14:52
Spot on Marc Ash.

Check out John Oliver's reporting on Jill Stein (and Gary Johnson)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

See what you get with Stein (along with some great Green Party positions).
 
 
+15 # BettyFaas 2016-10-25 23:04
John Oliver did not "report" on Jill Stein; he did a purposeful hit piece designed to weaken any late surging that his corporate bosses felt might take away votes from Hillary! He purposely distorted Dr. Stein's policies and persona. Comedy has driven a lot of political perceptions for awhile. Sometimes it is way too partisan, slanted and just a political ad. I would laugh if it was just all in good fun. It wasn't!
 
 
-16 # UT educator 2016-10-26 00:01
Let's get to the point #BettyFaas:
Are you saying that Stein is not an anti-vaxxer, not a believer in the 9/11 conspiracy, and not clueless about how government policies are paid for (QE to cancel student debt)?

If true, these positions are not funny at all!
 
 
+12 # BettyFaas 2016-10-26 03:34
I am saying Dr. Stein is not an anti-vaxxer. I have never read nor heard her talk about a 9/11 conspiracy. She told his people when they called that Congress has to be involved with QE and it's not the easiest way to do it, but it was chosen to be misrepresented by John Oliver. She told them a number of ways to cancel student debt. Also, she said that money would be spent back into the economy so would be an investment in the students' futures and an economic stimulus. Oliver chose to misrepresent her! Thank you for your comment, though it was sarcasm, I think. We all have foibles, including Dr. Stein, I imagine, for which she would be the first to laugh at but John Oliver's take of her was not satirical. It was a character assassination by ridicule.She knows her stuff about domestic and foreign affairs. One of the best TV appearances was her town hall for an hour on C-Span recently with very challenging questions from callers from all political stripes from all over the country. Jill Stein is quite amazing! Democracy Now ran the debates with her being injected with the same questions asked the two Presidential candidates, which was also interesting.
 
 
+2 # kyzipster 2016-10-26 19:13
Stein is not an anti-vaxxer. I don't know about her 9-11 beliefs, I'm not a big fan of Stein. Her position on vaccines is shared by many health care professionals and these concerns led to thimerosal, a mercury based preservative, getting removed from childhood vaccines by the FDA. The decision was science based, enough evidence of potential toxicity was presented to warrant the removal. I believe there has also been a change in protocol, the number of vaccines injected in a given day. Parents can thank this skepticism, it has led to safer vaccination of children.

This refusal to distinguish between informed questioning and paranoia that leads to endangering others by refusing to vaccinate is part of the problem. It's no wonder people are confused. Any attempt at discussion is often met with a person getting called an anti-vax lunatic. It's anti-intellectu al, it's become another part of the BS culture war.

I'm on the autism spectrum so I've read up on this issue extensively. I don't believe there is a link to autism but the issue of thimerosal is interesting and few people seem to understand that a lot of good came out of challenging pharmaceutical companies to make safer vaccines for babies and small children.
 
 
+39 # Anonymot 2016-10-25 14:52
It's interesting that there seems to be a real possibility that the Green Party might get over the needed 5% for public funding.

What has happened is that even though we are repelled by Trump there are far more people profoundly, morally shocked by Clinton - who we believe from her actual record as well as her own no-fly words - will take America to war with Russia, Iran, and China than there are who think Trump is not survivable until 2020.In 2020 the Greens can rebuild America if Clinton fails.

The entire Democratic Party has been proven to be rotted to its core. The Wasserman-Schul tz defeat of Sanders is just the most glaring example. We are tired of rot and verbal crumbs being what the poor and middle class receive.

Clinton lip service is merely what the CIA/MIC/DOD and Wall St agree can be said. The creation of the global American Empire is the madness that is behind her. It's Dr. Strangelove on a grander scale.

If you love living, if you want your children and grandchildren, your friends and lovers to survive - you won't vote for Hillary Clinton.

It's as simple as that, as morally honest as that. And unfortunately, she and they will no doubt be elected as your next President anyway!!
 
 
+30 # economagic 2016-10-25 16:59
Yes, this is what you eventually get when you insist on what seems to be the lesser evil in the short run, decade after decade.
 
 
-4 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-26 00:04
And when the left somehow hasn't figured out how to organize in the last 50 years.
 
 
+15 # CTPatriot 2016-10-26 03:07
We organized behind Occupy and were crushed by the militarized police. We organized behind Bernie and were crushed by the corrupt DNC's manipulation, cheating, voter suppression and vote rigging.

And then there are always the establishment liberals like Marc Ash to pat us on the head and say too bad, so sad, now fall in line.

So you're mostly wrong. We've figured out how to organize. We just haven't figured out how to sustain it once the PTB have smashed our organizing to bits, or prevent that from happening in the first place.
 
 
-4 # kyzipster 2016-10-27 10:24
OWS was hugely successful, not defeated by the police. I believe it shifted the national dialog and gave power to voices like Warren and Sanders. Sanders campaign, a self proclaimed 'socialist', was far more successful than most people predicted. I agree that the DNC was corrupt but they haven't crushed the movement that will continue after the election.

Such defeatist attitudes on the left, especially at RSN. Yes, we're up against monolithic forces but we've made great gains in recent years. The collective conscience is shifting in our favor, we need to get politicians elected at every level of government. It will take years.
 
 
+1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:39
If organizing doesn't result in change, or building a growing movement for change, then it's not effective organizing. And yes, that must include dealing with a police state that is hellbent on destroying us.
 
 
+16 # wrknight 2016-10-25 19:35
Quoting Anonymot:
What has happened is that even though we are repelled by Trump there are far more people profoundly, morally shocked by Clinton - who we believe from her actual record as well as her own no-fly words - will take America to war with Russia, Iran, and China than there are who think Trump is not survivable until 2020.In 2020 the Greens can rebuild America if Clinton fails.

It's not just her "no-fly" words, it also her "we can take Mosul" words and her "..and then we can move on into Syria and take back Raqqah" words and her "..this is what we have to do.." words.

And after Syria, then where will she go? Iran? How about Sudan (make sure you include South Sudan), they have lots of oil. Jordan? Nah, they don't have any oil. Hell, there's a whole lot of countries we can spread democracy to and get their oil (or whatever else they have of value). Even Russia. They have lots of oil. All we have to do is get rid of that nasty Putin.

And by the time we're done spreading democracy there won't be a nickel left for domestic spending. And your great-great grandchildren (those who weren't killed in the wars) will be working all their lives to pay off the national debt incurred for our reckless adventures while Hillary's progeny are living fat, dumb and happy.

Go ahead, Marc, vote for war, but I'll be damned before I'll join you.
 
 
+36 # Oakster68 2016-10-25 14:57
I'm looking for someone to raise the issue of how the Electoral College's winner take all approach, and more generally the lack of proportional representation - as in most parliamentary systems - are perhaps the biggest obstacle to viable third parties. In California there's also the additional obstacle of the "top two" primary. all these factors artificially elevate the duopoly structure of US electoral politics. The problem is that changing that system is close to impossible without something approaching a revolution.Bern ie came closer than anyone else since the time of Roosevelt, but even he failed. It's disheartening.
 
 
+27 # Anonymot 2016-10-25 16:39
And I'm looking for someone to raise the issue of if Hillary becomes President, Snowden will be condemned to live forever outside of his country and Assange will be condemned to the Ecuadorean Embassy in perpetuity, because she is unforgiving and vengeful.
 
 
+29 # Observer 47 2016-10-25 14:57
Mr. Ash, I have to agree with your point that HRC and Trump are not the same. Hillary is not OVERTLY a racist/bigot in the sense that she doesn't make the over-the-top inflammatory comments that The Donald does. Also, HRC is the choice of Wall Street, whereas Trump has garnered no support there. And Hillary continues to make threatening noises toward Russia, while Trump seems to actually like Mr. Putin. Further, The Donald seems to tend toward an isolationist bent, while HRC supported TPP, until that support cost her in the polls against Bernie Sanders. She'll flip again if she's elected. So, yes---Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump have a number of areas of difference.

Where I disagree with you, Mr. Ash, is regarding your unabashed advocacy of Hillary. The fact that she is a different kind of evil from Trump doesn't make her a better candidate. It just means that her evil has more of an international focus (to satisfy the MIC/CIA/Goldman Sachs et. al.), instead of Trump's concentration on domestic "problems." Why should any reasonable person be urged to pick one kind of evil over another? To put it in absolute terms, if one considers the greatest good for the greatest number, um.....Trump is less of a global threat.

But if there's a third choice, a person who ISN'T evil, doesn't want to bar immigrants, doesn't want perpetual war, doesn't want to continually reward the 1%, and DOES want to save the planet, why not choose her? Rather than choosing insanity.
 
 
+23 # economagic 2016-10-25 17:01
"The fact that she is a different kind of evil from Trump doesn't make her a better candidate."

Yes, thank you.
 
 
+33 # davehaze 2016-10-25 15:00
My first presidential election was a choice between Nixon and Humphrey. Nixon was a sociopath and a distant cousin. Humphrey was a warmonger. A speech he gave on Vietnam made me physically ill, nauseous, the only time in my life that this has happened. That I would vote for either of them was ridiculous. The only thing Nixon had going for him was the fact that the Republican Party had not started the Vietnam War. It was the Democrats who have started most of the wars since the Second World War. Humphrey would have continued the Vietnam War as did Nixon.

For Marc Ash to make that comparison happens to be accurate. Voting for Hillary over Trump would have been like voting for Humphrey over Nixon.

I have never voted for the Democrats or the Republicans in a presidential election. I feel that they do not represent me.

To be lectured by political sellouts is something I have had to put up with 40 plus years as this country has gone downhill and into near continous war under the Democratic Republican Party.

One day the Democratic president will start a nuclear war and then I will have to listen to Democrats say the Republicans would have been worse.
 
 
-16 # Brice 2016-10-25 19:30
Both sides were under the spell of the military industrial complex, and still are. You cannot blame the Presidents about Viet Nam ... foreign policy is a thing with a life of its own that cannot really be affected by the will of the people - except if they take the government back.

There are good reasons why the US intervenes in other nations (and a lot of bad ones too) but the idea that we have roughly 50 out or 200 countries that identify as Islamic and get influence and money from either Saudi Arabia or Iran and breed terrorism and do not allow their citizens human rights ... that is a big problem that the US and the Western world should be doing something about.
 
 
+8 # jimallyn 2016-10-26 01:14
Quoting Brice:
There are good reasons why the US intervenes in other nations

Really? Would you please name some of them for us?
 
 
+23 # John S. Browne 2016-10-25 15:00
#

Heil "Hitlery", heil "Hitlery", heil "Hitlery"! I'm so sick and tired of hearing patronizing support of this extremely evil and insane warmonger and mass-murder proponent! She deserves no support whatsoever, and those who support her are insane as well! Like the "'good' Germans" were insane to support Hitler! ENOUGH OF ALL THIS "SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NO MATTER WHAT" MADNESS! No, DON'T vote for "the Trump card" either; but hey, really, "Hitlery" is just as evil! They're both corporate-fasci sts! But "Hitlery" is part of the globalist "Fourth Reich" (neoliberal neocon) agenda that is seeking to subjugate the entire U.S., Western and global population(s)! Look at how far along the U.S. government is in doing so already! Do you think that the "RethugliCONS" could have done that all on their own without the aiding and abetting of the Democratic Party? Of course they couldn't have! It being said that both sides of the isle are really a one-party system isn't a hyperbolic slogan, it's really true! Wake up! Both the "DemoCONS" and the "RethugliCONS" are one party, the Corporate-Fasci st Party! Look at how the vast majority of the members of that party are doing away with our liberties, freedoms and rights in the U.S., militarizing police all across the nation, have surrounded us with neo-Nazi agencies from border to border and beyond monitoring us all non-stop, and increasingly going after innocent, non-violent Americans and criminalizing and over-criminaliz ing them!

#
 
 
+13 # John S. Browne 2016-10-25 16:09
#

(Continued from above)

And what I said in the foregoing doesn't even include the FACT that that one-party corporate- fascist duopoly, in other words both the "RethugliCONS" AND the "DemoCONS", are continuing the endless war OF terrorism which has already mass-murdered MILLIONS of mostly innocent civilians; etc.! But, nevertheless, OF COURSE my comments are getting voted down; because, as some nutcase above said, voting for evil is supposedly "realistic"! What madness! Those "'Hitlery'-bots " are the kind of people who are voting my comments down, those who simply don't like exclamation mark emphasis at the end of every sentence, and don't like anyone so strongly telling it like it is because they don't want to, and won't, face the truth, no matter what, etc.! Well, frack all you supporters of and voters for evil! Do you think I care if my comments get voted down? No, I don't! Because when my comments get voted down, I know that I am telling it like it is, since most "Amerikans" will never face what is really going on, but will continue to vote for and/or support evil! They'll never learn! And they LOVE being bigots against all those who are not conformists and evil-supporters , and complicit in mass- murder and turning the U.S. into a corporate-fasci st totalitarian militarized police state, like they are! Good luck with that, and go ahead and vote my comments down, the latter doesn't matter to me! You willfully-blind sheople will keep being complicit in our demise!

#
 
 
+13 # John S. Browne 2016-10-25 16:16
#

(Continued from above)

Well, I'm glad and grateful to see that the sane people here voted my original paragraph out of the red; but, man, was my second paragraph rapidly voted into the red! I had barely posted it, when it was immediately voted down, even though they couldn't possibly have had time to read it! And it goes to show that the biggest bigots here often if not usually vote my comments down automatically without reading them! But I'll bet it gets voted out of the red, too; thanks to all those who realize that I'm speaking nothing but the truth!

#
 
 
+42 # rivervalley 2016-10-25 15:05
Mark, you are WRONG! We know Clinton will win. We know Jill Stein won't. But we have consciences and cannot vote for a corporatist war monger. The truth is that HRC does not want our votes, and she needs to win without us, which she will do. It's not our fault that she is a lousy candidate with a lousy record. We supported an excellent candidate who would have won without all the fear mongering, but she and her minions prevented that from happening. She has not won me over. My choice is to vote, or to not vote. I always vote, so I'll vote for someone who has their heart in the right place.

I've made the mistake in the past to vote out of fear, but I'm too old to keep that up.
 
 
-25 # Petit-pois 2016-10-25 15:22
Your sentiments are valid but what if she doesn't get in by such a small margin and then Trump get to nominate one or more Supreme Court Judges. Surely that is the stuff of nightmares.
 
 
+22 # davehaze 2016-10-25 15:38
Republicans wouldn't elect odious Supreme Court judges without the votes of the Democratic Senate. Republicans like Georgie Bush would not be able to wage war with Iraq without the votes of the democratic Congress. Georgie Bush would not have been selected as president if the Democrats hadn't believed Clarence Thomas over Anita Hill.
 
 
+16 # wrknight 2016-10-25 19:12
Quoting Petit-pois:
Your sentiments are valid but what if she doesn't get in by such a small margin and then Trump get to nominate one or more Supreme Court Judges. Surely that is the stuff of nightmares.

The answer to your nightmares is to ensure the Democrats re-take the Senate. The President can only nominate Supreme Court members. It's up to the Senate to confirm them.
 
 
-24 # Petit-pois 2016-10-25 15:11
Dear fellow RSN readers
I dislike HRC intensely and I cannot bear Trump - stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
What I think MUST be considered is the fact that the next president will nominate at least one if not more Supreme Court Judges. Those guys are for life, don't hand that chance to Trump. No matter how much HRC is objectionable, the consequences of this vote will be really long term.
Make no mistake, thinking 'oh my state is a sure thing so I'll vote for Jill Stein to teach the Dems a lesson' will be exactly like the Brits who voted Brexit just to teach Cameron a lesson not really thinking it would happen.
 
 
+19 # guomashi 2016-10-25 15:35
What good is a vaporized supreme court?
DC will be the first city turned to glass, and the court with it.
 
 
+27 # Anonymot 2016-10-25 16:27
Excuse me, but as someone who has lived regularly, but part time in the EU, Brexit was brilliant. The UK will survive. Hopefully the EU will collapse and an entirely non-political new structure will be created built on a more rational base. Political corruption has sunk/is sinking it.

It's not unlike the 2-party system that's sinking America - the politics, politicians, and political administration are divorced from the public it is supposed to SERVE. The interplay between the top and bottom is lost.

That's the value of a Stein vote.
 
 
+14 # wrknight 2016-10-25 19:09
Maybe, maybe not. Trump will be a one term president for certain if he were to be elected. The Democrats in the Senate can play the same game as the Republicans can by refusing to support any Trump candidate for the Supreme Court. There's also a chance that the Republicans wouldn't even support a Trump nominee to the court. So the court gets reduced to 7 or even 6 for a few years.

But if you want to do something about it, help the Democrats re-take the Senate.
 
 
+6 # jimallyn 2016-10-26 01:17
Quoting wrknight:
The Democrats in the Senate can play the same game as the Republicans can by refusing to support any Trump candidate for the Supreme Court.

But will they? No, they will immediately roll over and approve far right Supreme Court Justices.
 
 
+22 # Patriot 2016-10-25 15:17
Want to try again, Marc?
 
 
+28 # tr4302@gmail.com 2016-10-25 15:23
Go to war with HRC and then explain your vote to your children!! Indict this corporate war monger for crimes against humanity and bring back Bernie!
 
 
+29 # librarian1984 2016-10-25 16:10
I have teenage children and I WILL NOT vote for a WARMONGER.
 
 
+7 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-25 21:47
Librarian;

I am sure you have noted all of your comments about deletions on this thread are now gone. I suggested we start a new list in case this one gets worse. That has been disappeared too. This will likely also be gone before you see it. I have not read anyone else mentioning that the "deleted by administrator" box never appears anymore. Maybe because the largest part of some threads would consist of that?
 
 
+30 # JayaVII 2016-10-25 15:30
It looks like my comment was deleted, and I'm not sure why. It was strongly voiced, but not abusive. I merely pointed out that the Democratic Party is in essence the graveyard of progressive political action, and that this column struck me as more appropriate for the corporate media. I also pointed out, yes, that it filled me with the kind of disgust I feel whenever I feel bulldozed by the crackpot realism of the two-party system.
 
 
-34 # No Go 2016-10-25 15:40
The 2016 Presidential Election is, clearly, between two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, one of which will be elected President on November 8.
Anyone claiming that there is a practical equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should have their head, heart, and hearing examined.
Trump is a repulsive, racist, misogynistic, megalomaniacal nincompoop, and anyone who votes for him falls somewhere within that frame of reference, or is just plain stupid.
Hillary Clinton is highly qualified to be President, and is supported by many eminent progressive leaders, as well as millions of other decent, progressive American citizens, and for good reason.
Hillary has articulated smart and progressive policy positions on numerous important issues, which, for anyone who can read and is interested, can be found at:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Sure there are some other candidates, who have no chance of being elected.
Gary Johnson is loopy, plain and simple, and has amply demonstrated that he is unqualified to be President.
Jill Stein has obfuscated her very odd positions on various issues, and, generally, demonstrated that she is not qualified to be President.
We know that either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be elected President.
Voters who cannot comprehend the monumental difference between Hillary and Donald, get to throw their votes away on some unqualified losers as a "protest".
Bernie Sanders is right! Vote for Hillary Clinton!
 
 
+23 # economagic 2016-10-25 17:12
"Anyone claiming that there is a practical equivalence between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should have their head, heart, and hearing examined."

I agree. They are very different evils, evils in entirely different dimension, so not comparable. Therefore, assured of evil, I will vote for neither of them.

Why is that so hard to understand? Why do T-Rump's grotesqueness and repulsiveness make Clinton's inconsistencies on climate and the environment, her consistency on more war as the solution to wars, and her close relationship with the banksters who robbed millions of Americans of billions of dollars and their homes, make her attractive?
 
 
+3 # Bryan 2016-10-25 18:57
'Trump is a repulsive, racist, misogynistic, megalomaniacal nincompoop, and anyone who votes for him falls somewhere within that frame of reference, or is just plain stupid.
Hillary Clinton is highly qualified to be President, and is supported by many eminent progressive leaders, as well as millions of other decent, progressive American citizens'>>>

Trump is a egomaniac.

Hilary is a sociopath.

I'll rather take my chances with a egomaniac than a sociopath.
 
 
+3 # John S. Browne 2016-10-26 08:23
#

Except they are both sociopaths, just "Hitlery" is a worse sociopath.

#
 
 
+15 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-25 20:25
Not interested in reading her sales pitch. She is known to lie to hide her actions and to make up stories to appear to be something she isn't. She has a long hideous record of being a warmonger. She supports fascist trade agreements and fracking. She is so extremely corrupt that she rewards corruption (DWS) for all to see. And she plans on increasing provocations against Russia and China.

Sanders was right...when he told us not to vote for who he might say to vote for.
 
 
-9 # Brice 2016-10-26 20:44
-- Sanders was right...when he told us not to vote for who he might say to vote for.

I am ashamed you are an American too, these comments are so far off the wall.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-27 20:04
You seem to be claiming that Sanders did not tell his followers this. And you also seem to indicate that this would be important if you did see it for yourself on video, and accept that it is true. So what do you think it would mean that he said this, and within a few months began campaigning for his former opposition?
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-10-27 22:35
And that Jane Sanders retweeted that message a few weeks ago. Things that make you go .. hmmm.

Well, some of us. Others refuse to hear the message, or try to dampen the strength of the signal. hmmm.
 
 
-2 # oakes721 2016-10-25 16:00
.
Then WRITE IN the most popular politician in America: BERNIE SANDERS.
 
 
+17 # Ted 2016-10-25 17:59
A wtite-in vote for ANY person that has not registered as a write-in candidate will be tabulated (summed up) but WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE VOTES CAST COUNT.

Bernie has NOT registered as a write in candidate.
 
 
+7 # djnova50 2016-10-25 18:06
Bernie Sanders is certified as a write-in candidate. Even if everybody in those states voted for him, he would not have enough to win. The best thing to do if you do not want to vote for Clinton or Trump is to vote for a third party candidate or choose not to vote.
 
 
+4 # Patriot 2016-10-25 19:22
dj, in which states is Sanders registered/cert ified or whatever is required in order to make write-in votes for him eligible for counting? If you know, would you tell us? Thanks!
 
 
+8 # Ted 2016-10-25 22:05
Quoting Patriot:
dj, in which states is Sanders registered/certified or whatever is required in order to make write-in votes for him eligible for counting? If you know, would you tell us? Thanks!


Here is a link to a vid from the co-founder of "Bernie-or-Bust " explaining why a Write-in vote for Bernie WILL NOT BE COUNTED;

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=CYwEOmMTwSw
 
 
-9 # Brice 2016-10-25 19:31
I would do that in a second if Bernie had chosen to run ... but sadly he did not. i was going to do that anyway up until about 3 or 3 weeks ago, and then it just hit me, we have to make sure that the Demcrats take back Congress and get into the Presidency ... we have never had a better chance to make the Democratic party work and take it back!
 
 
+12 # wrknight 2016-10-25 18:54
Quoting oakes721:
.
Then WRITE IN the most popular politician in America: BERNIE SANDERS.

Sorry, can't do that in Virginia. In Virginia, all candidates, including write-in candidates, have to have a slate of electors approved by the State Board of Elections prior to the election otherwise the ballot will be treated as "no vote".

There are other states that have a similar rule and people considering writing in a candidate should look up the rules for write-in candidates in their state.
 
 
+26 # heraldmage 2016-10-25 16:01
Marc, you have been a good do-be & done bidding of the DNC trying to scare people into voting for Clinton, whose running mate said yesterday is going request an expansion of the War Powers Act (WPA). If Congress agrees or doesn't rescind the current WPA the 1st 100 days of her reign will be marred by boots on the ground war. I don't expect the democratic base to flee, but registered Dems & GOP only represent 40% of the electorate, half of which the base. The majority of voters are independent.
Since 1944 when the DNC bosses replaced the peoples choice with Truman the bosses have made sure their choice was the candidate. Sanders is keeping his promise to support the Dem candidate.
Clinton is a hawk who has sworn unconditional support for Israel. Talk about a foreign interference in US elections, decades of AIPAC funding ensure Israel gets whatever it wants. Clinton's continuation of W's Syria regime change policy, her declaring the Assad government illegitimate, appointing a new government & providing it with a mercenary army caused the current Civil War & the daesh invasion. As President she wants to finish the job in Syria & punish Russian interference which prevented the US corporate control of Syrian & Ukraine's natural resources.
We need a voters revolution to ensure 3rd party participation in 2018 & prevent Clinton from claiming a voters mandate. But what a coup for the people if Stein won. If nothing else we scare the ruling parties into change
 
 
+16 # lorenbliss 2016-10-25 16:07
Quoth Mr. Ashe: "Painting the Democratic candidate as the devil to achieve those ends is ludicrous."

Alas, based on her oft-declared intent to start World War III (and thereby not only exterminate our species but reduce the entire planet to a radioactive death-sphere inhabitable only by cockroaches), Hillary truly IS "the devil."

Worse, actually, because in the Abrahamic theologies (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), it's not the devil who inflicts the Apocalypse; its their sadistic god. With whom we know Hillary identifies because of her long association with the Family.

(Again the damning relevance of Jeff Sharlet's work, "The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" [Harper: 2008]. Read it, acknowledge the endless nightmare Hillary and her fanatical fundamentalist co-conspirators intend to inflict on us all and be very, very, very afraid.)
 
 
-7 # Kiwikid 2016-10-26 01:27
What???
 
 
+27 # lfeuille 2016-10-25 16:09
Marc, I agree with a lot of what you said but you are still pretending that Trump can actually win. The sex scandal has ending any chance he had. He keeps loosing support and Hillary may end up with a landslide by default.

No one is saying there is no difference between Clinton and Trump. What we are saying is that she is equally dangerous in a very different way. Her deranged hostility toward Russia could lead to a nuclear war. Even if that is not her intent, it could easily get beyond her control. And her regime change policy will devastate large parts of the world, even if it doesn't directly effect most Americans.

That being the case, the last thing progressives should aim for is a Clinton landslide, which may convince her that the public actually likes her policies. The only possible leverage we have over her as voters is to try to trim her margin of victory.

In this particular election voting for Stein or Johnson or writing in Bernie or someone else serves a useful purpose even if it is not building an alternative progressive party for the future. We need a large protest vote in the present.
 
 
+27 # heraldmage 2016-10-25 17:00
Absolutely agree the last thing we need is for Clinton to think she has a mandate!
She has said no boots on the ground we must to make sure she doesn't forget that promise. Since we our government is known to lie us into war we must demand 3rd party independent verification of all accusation made against Russia or any other nation that could be used to justify war or is part of the "Wag the Dog" scenario.
We would be much safer with Stein as President. Most likely that won't happen but a Green / Democratic majority Congress would be a good second choice.
This is not an election to sit out, every vote counts. We needs the highest voter turn out ever in the history of the US, to let those in power know that WE THE PEOPLE are mad and WE aren't going to take it anymore.
We must send the message that WE THE PEOPLE are tired of war & the wasting of our resources. That it is time to take care of WE THE PEOPLE and rebuild our nation. To end the wars for profit & acquisition of wealth benefiting the 1% while impoverishing the majority of WE THE PEOPLE. A vote for Dr Stein & the Green Party sends that message.
There is nothing more important this year than voting. WE THE PEOPLE must make it clear that this is our nation & the status quo is not acceptable.
Make sure you vote on or before Nov 8th. A Green Vote is a vote for peace, the people & the planet.
 
 
+14 # sus453 2016-10-25 18:31
Heraldmage, I agree with your post, but "no boots on the ground" is exactly what she said about Libya.
 
 
+28 # BettyFaas 2016-10-25 16:42
Jill Stein has been diminished by the media during this campaign. Lately, her campaign has achieved more visibility. So have more overt criticisms. John Oliver did an obvious nasty hit piece on her. It was an over-the-top crafted ridicule not just meant to entertain. I don't think that these harsh critiques are accidental since votes for Dr. Stein are considered votes taken from Hillary Clinton. I feel that I have to voice my vote for sanity, which is the Stein/Baraka campaign. I firmly believe it is where our country needs to go!
 
 
+26 # Ted 2016-10-25 17:30
John Oliver works for time-warner who have donated $812,406.00 to clinton's campaign and is currently seeking government approval for a monopoly/merger with at&t.
 
 
+19 # Ted 2016-10-25 16:43
(tough crowd, eh Marc?)
 
 
+25 # Inspired Citizen 2016-10-25 16:48
Now Marc Ash is playing sheepdog for the corrupt and dangerous Hillary Clinton. Sorry; she is more dangerous than Trump. I'll vote my fears of Clinton and Trump AND vote my conscience.

#JillOrBust because when it comes to the two major party candidates, what difference does it make?
 
 
-10 # Robbee 2016-10-26 18:41
Quoting Inspired Citizen:
Now Marc Ash is playing sheepdog for the corrupt and dangerous Hillary Clinton. Sorry; she is more dangerous than Trump. I'll vote my fears of Clinton and Trump AND vote my conscience.

#JillOrBust because when it comes to the two major party candidates, what difference does it make?

- zitizen - whenever i tell you the difference you disappear - don't ask me to tell you again - unless you plan to stick around? okay? thanks!

- why do some keep flogging dead horse jill?

if jillie had wanted to test her positions against those of other progressives, she would have run in the dem primaries against o'malley, bernie and hill - then voters would have gotten to know her name and her positions

jillie is the "stealth candidate" - the fact that jillie remains almost unknown is directly due to one, and only one, person - jillie

if rump wins, those who vote "jillie" will deny they had anything to do with it - that's who jilliebots are

maybe in 2020 greens will find a progressive candidate brave as bernie? - to fight it out - on the issues - with other progressives?

it's 2016 - it's too late for jillie to see the wizard - to get her heart - her courage - that was so 2015?

if you spot the way the wind is blowing among jilliebots here on rsn - they are all growing eager to kiss rump - lie down with jillie and you wake up with rump

before zitty was for rump zitty pledged to elect ANY REPUG
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-10-26 18:57
before zitty was for jillie - zitty pledged to elect rump

before zitty was for rump - zitty pledged to elect ANY REPUG

when zitty pledged to write-in bernie and thereby elect ANY REPUG - zitty used that pledge to try to blackmail dem super-delegates to elect bernie

someday zitty - please tell us how all your zitty little plans work out? okay?
 
 
-30 # Rain17 2016-10-25 16:51
Stein will likely get less than 1% of the vote.
 
 
+28 # Ted 2016-10-25 17:24
We'll have to wait and see what the voting computers are pre-programmed to tell us how we voted I guess.
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-10-26 18:31
Quoting Ted:
We'll have to wait and see what the voting computers are pre-programmed to tell us how we voted I guess.

- at last we have one theory HOW hill "stole" the primaries - she "pre-programmed voting computers" in all 50 states

for at last clearing-up that pesky detail - ted! - thanks!
 
 
+10 # CTPatriot 2016-10-26 03:20
No doubt after the Democratic and Republican establishment collaborate to steal as many votes from Stein as possible to prop up their lesser evil candidate, Hillary Clinton, just as the DNC did for her during the primary.
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-10-27 15:52
Quoting CTPatriot:
No doubt after the Democratic and Republican establishment collaborate to steal as many votes from Stein as possible to prop up their lesser evil candidate, Hillary Clinton, just as the DNC did for her during the primary.

- maybe if we know HOW the dnc stole votes from bernie? we will know HOW to stop hill from stealing votes from jillie?

HOWever did hill steal votes from bernie? anyway?

was it? as ted supposes above? by "pre-programmin g voting computers" in all 50 states?

if putin doesn't leak HOW? how will we know HOW to stop hill from stealing the general election? - why don't jillie/trumpbot s on rsn all pledge not to vote for jillie or rump? - unless putin leaks HOW hill stole the dem primaries?
 
 
+27 # fsboos 2016-10-25 17:06
Marc Ash and RSN publish daily op-ed pieces from writers whose positions will never "win." Dennis Kucinich and others point out the horrors of war and our failed Mideast policies, but do readers expect that U. S. politicians will do an about face? Yet we desire to be informed and to support good causes marginalized elsewhere.
Similarly the fight to alter the right-wing two party system seems unlikely to succeed in the immediate future. Yet rather than preaching the message of realpolitik--ag ain--to a weary audience, why not give full and fair coverage to the possibilities for an alternate progressive political party? RSN should cover the Green Party and Jill Stein. What are you afraid of? Readers will vote as they choose.
 
 
+27 # Ted 2016-10-25 17:29
Wouldn't that be a pleasant change?

An informative, well-researched , unbiased journalistic report on the possibilties that a Green Party win might present?

But hey, we live in america so we should probably not even dream of such things.
 
 
+30 # sus453 2016-10-25 18:28
Marc, we all know that Jill Stein and the Green Party will not win - that's not the point If you are a progressive and you vote for Hillary in a non-swing state, you are throwing your vote away. You have a chance to build something, and you're throwing it away with with a corporatist hawk warmoner who is marginally better than the othe corpoatist warmonger.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party is a lost cause (Tea Party or not) - it's the liberal wing of a neoliberal imperialist system. To survive as a human race and as a planet, we need a different approach; and America needs an alternative to the two-party system choices we have now. But it's hard to have an alternative when they can't even get their message over the media. When I saw the headline on my inbox, I thought, "Finally, an article by Jill Stein. I knew Marc Ash would come through." But now I see it's just another pro-Hillary diatribe. Can't you even allow a Green Party person to write on here? I am so disappointed. I'm just this far from taking my (admittedly small) monthly donation and using it to support a site that actually cares about change in America.

Marc, your readers are trying to tell you something. It would be wise to listen to them unless you'd prefer we go somewhere else (a la Democratic Underground). If so, just tell us, and I for one will be on my way.
 
 
+19 # economagic 2016-10-25 19:53
Extremely well said; points that many people here have been trying to make in various ways since early spring if not earlier.
 
 
+17 # lorenbliss 2016-10-25 20:14
Hear, hear!!!
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2016-10-26 16:44
econo & loren mail me on Abrahamic @gmail.com
 
 
+22 # DaveEwoldt 2016-10-25 18:35
Marc, anyone who likes to believe that they're politically astute knows that Bernie is no socialist--he's a capitalist who believes it can be made more equitable. Infrastructure can be developed for the social good, but that's not socialism. Socialism is an economic theory about who controls the means of production, plus I don't recall Bernie ever saying anything bad about profit--about greed, yes, but not about profit. He prefers worker-owned cooperatives over undemocratic corporate behemoths, but that's not socialism either. Even free education and healthcare aren't necessarily socialist, just the rational free-market response to nurturing some of their prime assets--produce rs and consumers--afte r having destroyed their other prime asset--natural resources.

And why would the Green Party desire an alliance with a party that deeply believes in neoliberalism? That theory needs to be thoroughly discredited, not compromised with.
 
 
+24 # wrknight 2016-10-25 18:45
"What the Green Party needs is organizing and infrastructure. The Green Party can’t afford an adversarial relationship with the Democrats. They need an alliance. Such an alliance would aid, not deter, Green organizing."

So, Mark, what have you done to help the Greens get ahead? Is your above diatribe helping them? Unless you are a proponent of the two party system, perhaps you should get off your butt and help the Greens get organized, get publicity and gain traction instead of sitting on your butt crying "they can't win, they can't win". Get out there and help them get the recognition. Help them get elected.

Prophecizing that they can't win and then voting for someone else is a sure way to fulfill your own prophecy. Hey, make it happen. Make sure they lose by telling everyone they will lose and telling everyone not to vote for them.

You must love the two party system. Clearly the Republican and Democratic parties need more people like you to ensure their continued hold on American politics forever.

This incessant whining "they can't win, they can't win, they can't win" is insufferable and so is everyone who repeats it. With friends like you, the Greens don't need enemies.
 
 
-30 # kandotom 2016-10-25 18:56
As always, Marc is correct.
Unfortunately, as I wrote previously comment, many of RSN’s commentators/tr olls have gone off the deep end. It almost feel like RSN has been captured either by left-wing crazies, or by Trojan horses working for Donald Trump. Their unifying characteristic is irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton.
Many of them keep repeating the asinine meme that as President, Clinton will unleash World War Three, and they keep calling her a neo-con. Where on earth do these people get the idea that she is more likely to get us into a world war than Trump would? In my view, we will hopefully continue to muddle through and avoid a world war, as we have over the past 70 years, but surely a Trump presidency would be much more warlike than Clinton?
Look: It’s reached the point where a handy shortcut for assessing the pulse of the RSN readership is to simply look at the proportion of green thumbs up and red thumbs down: By and large, the comments with a preponderance of red thumbs are right.
Example: elizabethf writes: “A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump.” Correct.
So, whereas Marc Ash continues to write and publish highly sensible articles, the same cannot be said about most RSN followers.When I read a comment by someone claiming to be an avid Sanders supporter who now prefers Trump over Clinton, I see madness. When I read that someone is equally disgusted by both candidates, and cannot vote for either of them, I see a grave error.
 
 
+25 # DaveEwoldt 2016-10-25 19:34
kandotom, please explain to me how progressives who don't favor a pro-corporate war monger are irrational.

Just an FYI, people tend to get the idea that Hillary will start more wars based on her record and public utterances in support of regime change.
 
 
+20 # economagic 2016-10-25 20:22
"Example: elizabethf writes: 'A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump.' Correct."

Kandotom, I would accuse you of simplistic thinking, except that much of it, like the line above, is simply nonsense. It sounds profound, but it isn't: Since I will not vote for either Trump or Clinton, both will get the same number of votes regardless of who I vote for or whether I vote at all. I personally think anyone who would vote for T-Rump (I certainly don't see many Sanders supporters saying that) is seriously confused. But I do not have a dog in that fight, which is of only slightly more significance to the future of the Republic than whether my next car is a Ford or a Chevy.

I would not expect Ms. Clinton to appoint anyone I would consider "progressive" to the Supreme Court, but the long run is not the next Supreme Court any more than it is the next presidency. The long run is when the mean global temperature stops rising; when global politics leans more heavily on diplomacy than on weapons of mass destruction; when global infrastructure becomes sufficiently stable to support the current 7 billion on a path of smaller number and less mass and energy throughput -- or not.

If you seriously believe that Ms. Clinton will set us on such a path, so different from the paths of her husband and her immediate predecessor, fine. But please don't accuse me of insanity for believing that she will not do anything of the kind.
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2016-10-26 16:46
yes. check out your last message for a difference.
 
 
+16 # Bryan 2016-10-25 19:04
'What the Green Party needs is organizing and infrastructure. The Green Party can’t afford an adversarial relationship with the Democrats. They need an alliance. Such an alliance would aid, not deter, Green organizing.'..Ashe

That's bad advice.
The Dems will eat the Greens for lunch just as the Rethugs ate the 'original' grassroots Tea Party and totally co-opted their anti government corruption movement.
 
 
+13 # Bryan 2016-10-25 19:06
Bernie Sanders’s Hopes and Regrets
October 25, 2016
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/25/bernie-sanderss-hopes-and-regrets/

''Bernie Sanders hopes to hold a President Hillary Clinton to the Democratic platform’s commitment to progressive policies, but the Vermont senator may be having doubts and possibly regrets


It also appears that Sanders made his decision to support Clinton almost wholly based on domestic issues, which he focused nearly exclusively on during his primary campaign. On immigration, climate change, gun control and a number of other issues, Sanders aligns with Clinton rather than Trump.
And, Sanders rightly feared Trump’s xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, racism and demagoguery. But Sanders overlooked Trump’s conciliatory approach toward Russia and Clinton’s warmongering on Syria and her open hostility toward Russia. Given Sanders’s accurate critique of Clinton’s fondness for “regime change” wars, a Sanders’s victory would have likely offered a greater hope for peace.
In other words, Sanders had an historic opportunity and, arguably, an obligation in the face of the ruin of the American middle class and the danger of looming global conflict, but he failed to seize it. He either did not take seriously or failed to understand the urgency of the situation. He talked about a “revolution” to upend the status quo but ended up supporting a status quo candidate for President.

Given his comments this week, he might well be regretting his decision''
 
 
+16 # wrknight 2016-10-25 19:48
What Bernie failed to recognize is that by the end of the wars, there won't be a nickel for those domestic promises. In fact, there will be bigger deficits and a bigger national debt that our great-great grandchildren (those who survive the wars) will be struggling to pay off.
 
 
+14 # lorenbliss 2016-10-25 20:18
@wrknight: if indeed there are any humans left at all.
 
 
+16 # Bryan 2016-10-25 21:13
'' wrknight 2016-10-25 19:48
What Bernie failed to recognize is that by the end of the wars, there won't be a nickel for those domestic promises. ''

Exactly F'ing right!
I have tried to explain that to the Hillary sheep.
 
 
-13 # Brice 2016-10-25 21:59
When you do not understand the US budget, or the US tax system, or what is going on the in the country, making statements like that are just counter-product ive because someone might think you know what you are talking about.
 
 
+3 # John S. Browne 2016-10-26 08:44
#

Please don't kid yourself that that debt will EVER be paid off. It is in the multi-trillions of dollars, and the U.S. government spends another trillion dollars every year getting us more trillions of dollars in debt, all by design, so they obviously have no intention, and have long had no intention, of paying it off. All they ever allegedly intended on doing was simply paying the interest on the debt, if that.

#
 
 
+1 # wrknight 2016-10-27 07:31
Quoting John S. Browne:
#

Please don't kid yourself that that debt will EVER be paid off. It is in the multi-trillions of dollars, and the U.S. government spends another trillion dollars every year getting us more trillions of dollars in debt, all by design, so they obviously have no intention, and have long had no intention, of paying it off. All they ever allegedly intended on doing was simply paying the interest on the debt, if that.

#

Unfortunately, John, it does get paid down. Not through direct payments, but indirectly, through inflation and devaluation of the dollar, the debt becomes a smaller percentage of the GDP which is measured in current (albeit devalued) dollars. So, dollarwise, the numbers always increase, but in terms of buying power and GDP, those dollars are much smaller.

But in the meantime, those who have little property or material wealth get hit hard because what money they have, has less value.

Bottom Line: in the end, it's the little guy who gets to pay the bill.
 
 
-12 # Brice 2016-10-25 22:04
-- But Sanders overlooked Trump’s conciliatory approach toward Russia and Clinton’s warmongering on Syria and her open hostility toward Russia.

I think Bernie would put you right on that ... you're way off-base there. Trump is not conciliatory to Russia - most of this stuff is thing you imply from watching the crazy things people say in the media, not serious debate points - because there were none, or position papers.

So, you are raising the possiblity that Bernie made a mistake, but you have no real backing argument or proof. Hoewever, you might be right. So what? People make mistakes all the time, Americans made a big one by not voting for Bernie.

What is the thing about bashing someone till they are lifeless because they made a mistake or changed their mind. This is the foolishness of the American voter ... this is real politics ... not fantasy fairy-land wish upon a star.
 
 
+8 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-25 21:09
Mr Ash:

Your words-"To say that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump echoes the disastrous memes of 1968 and 2000. No difference between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon? No difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore?".

There are numerous differences between any two individuals. But how anyone claim to know that Humphrey would not have been as bad as Nixon. And was Nixon even worse than LBJ? LBJ turned it into a US war. Nixon eventually ended it. No one knows whether Humphrey would have done more or less damage than Nixon did.

You claim that "the difference was life and death for millions". Yet you simply do not know who may have taken more lives.

And did Gore object to what Clinton had done to Yugoslavia and Iraq? No one knows what he would have done either.

It is hard to believe that Gore could have been worse than W. But it is equally difficult to believe that Romney would have been worse than Obama.

You state that "Painting the Democratic candidate as the devil to achieve those ends is ludicrous". HRC's record paints her, we only summarize her record. How is she not worse than W or Nixon? Knowing what BushI had done to Iraq, and that her husband's regime had killed another million Iraqis, she supported BushII's war. She pushed another war based on lies in order to wreck Libya. And she played a part in devastating Syria. In provoking Russia and China, HRC is more dangerous than Nixon by far, and W and Trump.
 
 
+2 # Anonymot 2016-10-26 16:48
Absolutely agree. mail me at gmail.com on it.
 
 
-10 # Brice 2016-10-25 21:58
Some good stuff about Jill Stein is that she wants to pardon Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, John Kiriaku and probably others - AND give them a job in her administration.

I think that is a great idea - at least a great subject to talk about ... there is one minor problem with that though ... and that is that Jill Stein does not have the numbers to be close to even being a contender. She could not get into the debates, though she gave her own debates outside of the mainstream media where she said lots of thoughtful stuff.

Now, if there were a bunch of people that were saying they would vote for Jill Stein if she had more support, I'd say - sure, I'll vote for her if there was broader support with me - BUT THERE ISN'T. There just is not near the support there to get me to switch my vote from help0ing keep Trump out to making a futile symbolic gesture to people who will not even look at what Jill Stein's vote count is.

It's an empty gesture to vote for Stein, and voting for Hillary might actually do some good. Voting for Stein, or Johnson is hurting the country should this be a closer election that we think ... Trump needs to be soundly defeated of we will have a Trump-lookalike in every future election cycle.
 
 
+7 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-25 23:55
I think you have a point: if we really wanted to get Stein elected, we need to demonstrate widespread support well before the election. Why couldn't we have a thunderclap/cro wdfunding style thing where people say they'll all agree to vote for Stein if enough people sign up to give her a chance?
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-10-26 18:22
Quoting Matt_OccupyEarth:
I think you have a point: if we really wanted to get Stein elected, we need to demonstrate widespread support well before the election. Why couldn't we have a thunderclap/crowdfunding style thing where people say they'll all agree to vote for Stein if enough people sign up to give her a chance?

- jillie needed to see the wizard in 2015 - not having done so in 2015 - now she has until 2019 to decide whether to enter the dem primary and debate other progressives
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-10-27 12:18
Quoting Robbee:
Quoting Matt_OccupyEarth:
I think you have a point: if we really wanted to get Stein elected, we need to demonstrate widespread support well before the election. Why couldn't we have a thunderclap/crowdfunding style thing where people say they'll all agree to vote for Stein if enough people sign up to give her a chance?

- jillie needed to see the wizard in 2015 - not having done so in 2015 - now she has until 2019 to decide whether to enter the dem primary and debate other progressives

- enthusiasm from anyone other than jillie can carry jillie only so far - at some point jillie has to find her courage to face other progressives in a debate
 
 
-2 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:44
Jill is fulfilling her role as Green Party nominee. We're the ones who have to decide whether to vote for her, so our enthusiasm is really the only thing that matters. She doesn't support vote swapping, but that doesn't have to stop us from doing it.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-26 19:43
No, Brice.

How do you figure HRC "might actually do some good"? Even if she wanted to, how does a person make up for wrecking countries and destroying millions of lives?

We already had a "Trump-lookalik e". Bill Clinton just used a filter, so he didn't sound alike.
 
 
-5 # Brice 2016-10-26 20:40
So, you say Hillary Clinton has wrecked countries and destroyed the lives of millions of people? That could almost be funny if it were not so pitiful and uninformed.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-10-27 20:27
She has not yet been the one most responsible for such destruction. But she supported every war that the US has started. As SOS, she was heavily involved in the devastation of Libya. She also played a large part in the beginning of the demolition of Syria. Now she is planning to finish the regime change there, along with all of the death and ruination that we make a part of such evil endeavors. Even looking at only these two examples, she has played a large part in "wrecking countries and destroying millions of lives". Your denying her blood stained hands as you support this warmonger demonstrates a lack of morality.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-10-27 22:50
I find the smug condescension even more irksome than the willful ignorance. Indeed, a lack of morality.

Every single day our president wakes up and decides to kill people. Every day Ash Carter and Henry Kissinger try to think up ways to kill and maim more people, with no regard at all for civilian casualties.

As far as we know we get one short lifetime. Americans enjoy relative security and plenty. Yet we spend half our discretionary funds on war. Why? Who are we to go around the world and take the one short life of millions of people? Why can't they just live their lives? Why is America so invested in war, and what will it take to stop us? I'm an American. It's not what I want. Why aren't American citizens ever asked if WE want to continue these wars, this quest for American empire?

Every day Hillary Clinton will wake up and decide to kill people in our name, even women and children.

Anyone who votes for her will have blood on their hands. Every person on the planet knows this except, apparently, the people who intend to vote for her.
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 22:51
No matter who is President, they will be murdering people. Wouldn't Jimmy Carter have stopped it if he could have? The last President who tried to de-escalate our warmongering was Kennedy, and the CIA used him to send a very clear message to all future presidents.

Every American already has blood on their hands for allowing this country to be known as a democracy while it kills in our name. Any American who is not on hunger strike for the victims of our wars has blood on their hands. Your hands are already dripping with blood - they won't get any bloodier if you vote for Hillary.
 
 
0 # Ruth Steinberger 2016-10-25 22:08
A point many seem to be missing is the comment that by running within the Democratic Party framework Sanders got attention that he would not have garnered as a third party name. That is a great point Marc. Thank you for this very good piece.
 
 
-2 # dotlady 2016-10-25 22:33
I want so badly for the Greens to rise and offer a truly alternative and progressive mind-set, but they're not quite there yet, alas. The election is window-dressing.
There are two Hillarys - one is the girl with some good dreams of helping people, and the other is the ambitious, malleable party member. As the former, a tempting candidate. As the latter, a bronze figurehead on the front of the powerful black mercedes-benz (some might prefer to think of an American brand name) thrusting through small countries and large aiming at world domination and suppression of competitors. She has the establishment stamp of approval. If Trump wins, and doesn't earn that stamp, well, he could tangle things up some and might be set aside, as we have seen before.
 
 
+8 # sus453 2016-10-26 16:37
Quoting dotlady:
I want so badly for the Greens to rise and offer a truly alternative and progressive mind-set, but they're not quite there yet, alas.


Then maybe you can help the Green Party do just that.
 
 
-10 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-25 23:51
All of the Stein voters seem to be under the misimpression that we live in a democracy, and that somehow voting your conscience will eventually lead to positive change - I just haven't heard the middle steps explained, how you get from the voting to the change. Organizing and direct action are the way you get change. In a presidential election, the only power you have is to choose between the lesser of two evils, and that will not change until after our electoral/campa ign finance system has been completely overhauled.

Also, some things actually are fairly simple, and on a simple political scale, the Democrats are undeniably to the left of the Republicans. How would we not be better off with the more left of the two establishment parties?

By the way, I would love it if all the people who vote down my posts would actually say what it is that I'm wrong about. Are you voting it down because you don't like unpleasant truths?
 
 
+8 # maro 2016-10-26 02:20
What we need is to lay the groundwork for multiple parties by changing the election process and breaking two party rule. I wrote this article out of frustration over thoughtful essays like this one that never mention that there is another way. A way where we can vote our conscience without throwing our vote away.

Please pass this around!
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/39040-sick-to-death-of-republicans-vs-democrats-want-to-end-two-party-rule
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-10-26 20:11
[quote name="maro"]Wha t we need is to lay the groundwork for multiple parties by changing the election process and breaking two party rule. ... there is another way. A way where we can vote our conscience without throwing our vote away./quote]
- too bad germany didn't have a 2-party system



Weimar Germany had a parliamentary Reichstag, based on a quota system. The focus, like all parliamentary systems, is on the party, not the individual and parliamentary systems have multiple parties. They do not just have two as in the US, so having 50% of the vote or more is irrelevant, all that matters is that you have the largest minority and if that minority is insufficient for a clear majority as defined in their constitution, you simply form a coalition government.
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-10-26 20:13
Hitler becoming Chancelor in 1933 resulted from the democratically elected seats that his party held. As head of the party, Hitler could either be directly elected to a position, like the one he lost to Hindenburg, or he could gain the Chancellorship by his party having a clear majority in the Reichstag and get appointed by the President, OR HE COULD become Chancellor without a clear majority via a coalition government… It is the last option that saw Hitler rise to power and the “back room deals” many Americans lament as having got him there, were simply a normal part of forming a coalition government in a democratic parliamentary system. Hitler’s party was elected, it formed a legitimately democratic coalition government with a condition of that coalition being Hitler’s appointment to the chancellery… Which was just the German title (although much weaker position) of Prime Minister. So yes, Hitler was elected via his role as party leader within a democratic institution.
 
 
-2 # Robbee 2016-10-27 16:09
if germany had had a 2-party system then hitler would not have taken over germany

how do posts showing how germany's parliamentary system resulted in hitler taking power? get down votes?
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-10-27 16:17
Quoting Robbee:
if germany had had a 2-party system then hitler would not have taken over germany

how do posts showing how germany's parliamentary system resulted in hitler taking power? get down votes?


if thine eyes offend thee - pluck them out - pluck out your lyin' eyes - never flee the truth
 
 
+7 # Ted 2016-10-26 08:25
I've just sent RSN a copy of an open letter from journalist and author Chris Hedges that I hope will be considered for publication here on RSN in the journalistic tradition of equal time for opposing opinions.
 
 
+5 # John S. Browne 2016-10-26 09:15
#

Yah, why isn't Chris Hedges published here? He was great during the lead up to the Iraq mass- murder debacle, and has stayed great as far as I can tell. An exception was that now willful- idiot over at Truthout, William Rivers Pitt. He was right-on about Iraq, and up until about 2006; but now he's just a typical "'DemoCON' Party" hack on most things, like so much of those who are regularly published here. With few exceptions, like Glenn Greenwald, those who tell it completely like it is are by and large not tolerated here, as is the same or similar with Truthout and most "independent journalism" and "alternative media" sites, or the more "mainstream" of them, like RSN and Truthout, anyway.

#
 
 
+4 # ForDemocracy 2016-10-26 21:09
Your comment reveals only one thing: a lack of commitment to real & fundamental change. The duopoly is all you believe in, is as far as you can see. How sad. But your position will prove to be only a cheerleading for a game, the profit system, as doomed as ever. It won't be quick but the NEED for change will bring change. RSN needs to clearly provide access to Green Party candidates & the Green New Deal. Otherwise, why should anyone bother to read you? Private media & elite corporate owners think they can keep a failing & dysfunctional system going by ignoring the real needs of the people. It won't work, but keep the illusion going RNS as long as you can.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-10-27 17:30
Quoting ForDemocracy:
Your comment reveals only one thing: a lack of commitment to real & fundamental change. The duopoly is all you believe in, is as far as you can see. How sad. But your position will prove to be only a cheerleading for a game, the profit system, as doomed as ever. It won't be quick but the NEED for change will bring change. RSN needs to clearly provide access to Green Party candidates & the Green New Deal. Otherwise, why should anyone bother to read you? Private media & elite corporate owners think they can keep a failing & dysfunctional system going by ignoring the real needs of the people. It won't work, but keep the illusion going RNS as long as you can.

- two points!

1) duopoly is not the problem
2) electing jillie - even were that possible in view of jillie refusing to debate other progressives in the same primary - solves nothing

there is but one way to overthrow plutocracy - public funding - only - of federal - state - and local - elections - power to the people!

if she takes office? hill promised netroots nation in her first 30 days - to propose a constitutional amendment that reforms campaign finance - go bernie! and go dem!
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2016-10-28 06:44
#

And you really believe that she will keep that promise, moron, anymore than "Odrona" kept 98% of his campaign promises?! You are part of the mass-insanity!! Wake up and answer the phone, the part of your brain that is buried down ever so deeply and is unsused, if you have one, is calling!! Hello?! Anybody home?! Anybody there?! No, obviously not!! Click!!

#
 
 
-2 # dotlady 2016-10-26 23:14
Why do I find it unlikely that America will adopt a Parliamentary system anytime soon? True that might dispel our duopoly gridlock, but even the possibility of a coalition government is obviously not a perfect solution either, as Robbee points out (at 20:13). I haven't written off the Green party totally, just don't think they can pull off much in this election. It's a big dare that could end badly with Trump winning. Maybe the best approach is to say - does it matter? How is it going to end well in any case?
 
 
-4 # ericlipps 2016-10-27 04:38
Quote:
Sanders, a well noted Socialist running within the Democratic Party structure and vowing not to go rogue with an independent campaign should he fail to gain the Democratic nomination, garnered more progressive Democratic support than all Green Party presidential candidates combined. He did it and is still doing it without demonizing anyone.
No, his followers--incl uding most of the commenters here--did that for him.
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-10-27 16:38
Quoting ericlipps:
Quote:
Sanders, a well noted Socialist running within the Democratic Party structure and vowing not to go rogue with an independent campaign should he fail to gain the Democratic nomination, garnered more progressive Democratic support than all Green Party presidential candidates combined. He did it and is still doing it without demonizing anyone.

No, his followers--including most of the commenters here--did that for him.
- folks you call bernie's followers - the ones demonizing hill - never followed bernie concerning "infinitely better" than any repug - hill - they identified themselves as "bernie supporters" but drew their own line regarding hill - now you compound their deception by identifying them as "bernie's followers" - for clarity - in the future kindly refer to such backsliders as "former self-identifyin g bernie supporters" - i - for instance - supported bernie before - during - and after - his endorsement of hill = i prefer not to be confused with them - kindly appreciate my distinction, thanks!
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 23:01
Yes, and as Bernie said, most of his followers are independent thinkers who make up their own minds about what to do rather than blindly following Bernie's instructions.
 
 
+2 # Ann M Garrison 2016-10-27 13:24
There are 19 states sold blue for Hillary and 19 solid red for Trump. The Hillary states are far more populous, guaranteeing her win. I voted for Jill and Ajamu and I'd do the same in a swing state, but there is no reason for anyone in a solid blue or red state to worry about voting Green. All those carrying on about why we must vote for Hillary without making these distinctions are trying to keep the Greens from getting that key 5% that would make us an official national party wth proportionate federal funding in 2020 and to keep us from overcoming ballot access barriers in states requiring a win of 1 - 5%. If you want to see whether your state is solid red or blue, Google 270toWin.
 
 
-1 # Robbee 2016-10-27 18:17
Quoting Ann M Garrison:
that key 5% would make us an official national party wth proportionate federal funding in 2020 and to keep us from overcoming ballot access barriers in states requiring a win of 1 - 5%.

- nonsense!

if jillie does not get 5% of the 2016 general election vote - it is not true that jillie cannot qualify for federal matching funds in 2020

in other words - without the double negative - whether or not jillie gets 5% of the 2016 general election vote - jillie can still qualify for federal matching funds in 2020

wikipedia says - Candidates can expect up to $250 matching funds from public funds for each contribution from an individual they receive. The source of the funds comes from a $3 voluntary checkoff on the US income tax form.
In order for a candidate to gain the benefits of matching funds, they must raise $5,000 from 20 states during the primaries or have received 5% of the popular vote in the general election.
Pat Buchanan, running as the Reform Party candidate in 2000, received matching funds despite winning only 0.4% of the vote.
On June 30, 2012, Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein, received enough contributions to qualify for federal matching funds
if jillie does not qualify for federal matching funds in 2016 - it is her own lazy fault - likewise for 2020
 
 
+4 # JayaVII 2016-10-27 18:04
How can a person of conscience NOT lodge a protest vote against a pseudo-democrat ic system more redolent of P.T. Barnum than Thomas Jefferson?

The single best reason for voting for Dr. Stein (or Gary Johnson, or the SWP candidate, or Spongebob Squarepants), even apart from the manifest failings of the big party candidates, is to demonstrate one's refusal to accept a money-driven political system and media that make genuinely progressive candidates all but invisible. Giving the Democratic and Republican parties literal ownership of the debates ... what kind of sick joke is that? Where else would something like this be tolerated?

To vote for a Democratic or Republican candidate under the current repressive system is to accept and endorse that repression, and to reject one's own freedom. The problem is the two-party system itself, and the only way to begin the process of dismantling that failed, corrupt, profoundly anti-democratic system is for people of conscience and courage to stop voting for the wretched candidates it produces ... candidates in its own corporate image. And I mean Stop. Right. Now.
 
 
-1 # Matt_OccupyEarth 2016-10-30 23:07
Well, a 2% showing is not going to be much of a demonstration. Voting for a candidate who might win is only an endorsement of the system if you choose to view it that way - it can also be seen as a pragmatic, strategic choice to hopefully keep a madman out of the most powerful office in the world.
 
 
0 # Jaax88 2016-10-27 22:24
Some interesting information has just come out about Stein's investments. I think it is important for all who are choosing to vote Green and for her. It appear Stein may be talking a good game, but as is common
with high maintenance people money may be more important than what she says.

The information is that Stein and her husband have upwards of $10 million in assets and a good portion of those assets are apparently invested in fossil fuel companies.

Go to this link to read all about it:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/26/jill-stein-s-ideology-says-one-thing-her-investment-portfolio-says-another.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon
 
 
+1 # JayaVII 2016-10-27 23:05
I looked at the piece ... it seems that most of the investments are in mutual funds rather than direct stock holdings. The family obviously has some money, and in a capitalist system it must go somewhere. I realize there are some humanitarian investment funds, but it's all Wall Street and it's all profit-driven. There's a nastiness to the Daily Beast piece that reminds me of a not-terribly-br ight cousin of mine who thought he saw hypocrisy in the fact that although my politics are left, I indeed had to work for a living within the system. The point is that Jill Stein is working to change the existing system, unlike Hillary, an elitist who loves the system and just wants to change it around the edges basically for cosmetic purposes. If Jill Stein were a money-driven person like Trump, she would not be attacking the corporations she owns stock in. This kind of petty purity is for dopes and dupes. Spare me.
 
 
+4 # dotlady 2016-10-28 10:31
To Robbie - I find it dismissive and belittling that you call Jill Stein - jillie. This is the kind of thing a mother uses with her child. If Stein is known as jillie by her comrades, fine. Otherwise please cut it out.
 
 
+3 # laurele 2016-10-30 22:06
Et tu, Marc Ash? The only thing you're right about is that Hillary and Trump are not equally bad. Trump says horrible things; Hillary does them. SHE is the greater evil, and her outright theft of the nomination from Sanders proves progressives cannot work with the completely corrupt Democratic Party. You can try all you want to shove Hillary down our throats, but we will vomit her up. You cannot and will not force her on us. As long as you keep doing this, don't be surprised when donations come to a standstill.

Jill can win if enough people vote for her, for the greater good rather than the lesser evil. #JillNotHill #NeverHillary #DemExit
 
 
+1 # MDSolomon 2016-11-21 12:34
Ash writes: "The reason Sanders succeeded in being viable as a presidential candidate is that he was able to convince progressive Democrats that supporting him would not open the door to another Richard Nixon or George W. Bush."

No, the reason Sanders was in the spotlight is that he cut a deal with the DNC, as this email from WikiLeaks shows: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397

The blue party is owned and operated by the same folks that control the red party. One of their objectives is to waste the time of those who seek to change the system:

“We must keep the people busy with political antagonisms. We’ll therefore speed up the question of (fill in the blank) within the Democratic Party; and we’ll put the spotlight on (fill in the blank) [for] the Republican Party. By dividing the electorate in this way, we’ll be able to have them spend their energies at struggling amongst themselves on questions that, for us, have no importance whatsoever.” —US Bankers magazine, 1892 (Sarah E. Van De Vort Emery, Imperialism in America: Its Rise and Progress, Emery & Emery, 1893, pp. 71-72, as quoted in the Chicago Daily Press)

Ash is apparently on board with their program.

http://coloradopublicbanking.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-view-from-top-of-power-pyramid.html
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN