OK, can’t argue with any of what you say, nor do I want to argue with it. I
don’t think voting green is meaningless in terms of one’s own moral or ethical
compass. I mean it only from the point of view of those to whom one might wish
to send that message.
On Jul 30, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've been listening to so many knowledgeable people discussing the points
that you bring up. There's room for a lot of discussion, many opinions.
But I don't agree that voting Green is meaningless. First of all, for some
of us, it is a moral choice. I think, after the books and articles that I've
been reading about Hillary and after the things I've seen her do for the
past 15 years, that her impact on the country and the world has been, and
will be even more as president, evil. Yes, her rhetoric has moved to the
left. But that doesn't mean that her actions will. And even the rhetoric has
moved to the left only slightly. I believed Obama's rhetoric and I
discovered that he did a good deal of lying during his campaign. I also
discovered that the people who said that all they needed to do was to put
pressure on him to make progressive choices, were wrong. And Obama is to
the left of Clinton. If Bernie had an impact on the campaign, and I think
it was limited only to campaign rhetoric, he certainly had no impact on the
centers of power within the Democratic party.
The message that needs to be sent to the Democratic paarty, can be sent in
various ways. Certainly, if a good percentage of Progressives vote Green,
that will send a message. Everyone won't do that, nor do they have to. It's
just one alternative. I don't think it's an alternative for people in the
swing states, but it is for the progressive members of the Democratic Party
in the red and blue states. Or people can begin to organize against the
status quo in other ways. It's a matter of individual conscience. But for
people to vote for a corporate war candidate because they've been scared
into doing so when they actually don't have to, is a symptom of how
frightened and manipulated our citizens have become. Trump might start a
nuclear war out of stupidity or egomania. Clinton may very well start one
out of clear policy objectives with the support of the military. The fact
that she won't be spouting racist epithets while she is destroying millions
of people, won't lesson the destruction.
Mmiriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 10:43 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Very Hard Sell
But Bernie's attempt to start a political revolution, to start a movement
happened a long time ago, and there were no immediate or even long-term dire
consequences at stake. And his attempt has made a yuge difference, to take
his version of the word. I think that difference has forced Hillary to
change some of her positions, to indeed move, if almost imperceptibly, to
the left on at least some issues. He and his supporters aren't going away,
and maybe the DNC could marginalize them, all but make them invisible, but
that's just showmanship in a controlled atmosphere and arena.
Voting for the Green Party in this election, at this late date in the game,
will as you say, make a point, send a message of rejection of the status
quo, but, as you have also said, only if everybody who shares that
dissatisfaction with and rejection of the status quo. But that isn't going
to happen for several reasons. You've mentioned one of them, the swing
states, the states in which, without a clear victory for Hillary and the
Dems, there is the very real and present danger that Trump could win. So the
Green Party movement has already lost many voices in the protest. Then,
there are, I guess you could call them the pragmatists, who are going to go
the lesser of two evils route.
Then there are the "just to be on the safe side" voters, who, I suppose
could be included in the pragmatists.
Anyway, at this late stage and so close to the moment of decision that will
result in a real situation, I really think the vote the green party strategy
is pretty meaningless, bordering on dangerous.
Of course, putting Hillary in the white house is dangerous, too, we agree
about that.
I suppose there is the extremely slim hope that her shift to the left will
increase, that she will listen to the progressives, but it is a slim hope.
She's not a stupid person, both the good and the bad news.
And, I am afraid that the general reaction to the protest registered by a
few thousand green party votes will basically be "so what?" They'll pat
those votes and the voters who cast them on the head and say, aren't they
cute, just as they did, far too successfully, sadly, with Bernie and the
movement he set in motion.
On Jul 30, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Joe, that's true. Only the deluded could imagine a Green Party
Presidential
win. That was also true in the case of Bernie Sanders, at least at
the
beginning of his campaign. He said that he was building a movement
to change
the Democratic Party. He said that this campaign wasn't about him.
It was
about building a revolution. Supporting the Green Party fulfills the
same
function. The point is to build a movement. Some people believe
that a
movement can be built that will take over the Democratic party. Some
people
believe that there's too much money and power entrenched in the
Democratic
Party and a movement needs an alternative party. But this year,
those of us
who are supporting the Green party are doing so because it is
morally
repugnant to vote for Hillaary who represents everything about our
current
government that we abhor. It's an ethical choice. But from my point
of view,
one can only make that choice in states that have an electoral
college setup
that ensures that Trump won't win, regardless of what we do. From
everything
I've read and heard, there are 6 swing states. Michigan, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania are three of them. I haven't looked up the other three
although
I heard them mentioned. I just can't remember. Those of us who are
talking
about voting Green, are doing so because the status quo is
unacceptable to
us. Obviously, if you don't feel that way, voting Green isn't a
reasonable
choice for you.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz
Comcast
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:42 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Very Hard Sell
In addition I think the Green Party is only on the ballot in 37
states.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alice Dampman Humel <mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:20 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Very Hard Sell
Because voting for the green party will accomplish nothing at this
point. Sending a message is not good enough in the face of the
possibility
of that lunatic narcissist child being in the White House.
And remember, this is sort of what I have said all along about both
Nader and Sanders: if everybody who said, oh, I really like him, but
I won't
vote for him, because he doesn't have a chance, had indeed voted for
him, we
may be sitting in a very different place now.
But, IMO, this time, that ship has sailed.
Some Bernie supporters have indeed decamped, either to not vote at
all or to the Green or Libertarian candidate. Trump is trying to
lure some
of them over to himself, although I've never, ever understood the
notion of
the supposed similarities between Trump and Sanders.
So voting for the Green Party is, IMO, a dangerous game at this
point.
Alice
On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why not vote for the Green Party? At least it stands for
what you believe
and if enough people do that, the Democratic party will,
maybe, begin to get
a message about what people really want. If not, then all
the Progressive
Democrats should move their enthusiasm and energy to the
Green Party.
Actually, many Bernie supporters already have.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Kevin LaRose
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Very Hard Sell
Kevin LaRoseI've waffled back and forth several times over
the past few
weeks about whether or not I'll bite the bullet already and
vote for
Hillary. I will probably waffle several times more before
Election Day.
Here's what it comes down to for me: Hillary has three
months to show me why
voting for her won't initiate a gag reflex. She's not off to
a bang-up
start. It would be the hardest thing in the world for me to
cast a vote
simply out of fear. But not voting at all isn't an option
either. Hillary
can say all the nice things she wants, but actions speak
louder than words,
and I don't think I'm going to like where she takes the
nation as a whole.
Of course, Trump will take us to even darker places, so
there's that to
consider. What's bugging me right now is I'm afraid the
Democrats are now
going to try to disappear Bernie and the revolution he
started down the
memory hole and pretend it never happened. I'm not sure I
can endorse that
with my vote. I'm going to be a hard sell, Hillary, but give
it your best
shot anyway.
Anderson, IN
Email: kl1964@xxxxxxxxxx
