It's probably not a brand of socialism at all. I would guess that it is
what the social democrats call socialism and they gave up socialism a
long time ago even if they still like to use the word for themselves.
The Green Party is not very distinguishable from the social democrats
anyway. Compare the platforms of the Democratic Socialists of America to
that of the Green Party and I bet that you will have a hard time telling
the difference. I suspect that there is a lot of overlap in membership
too. The name of the ideology is bourgeois liberalism, not socialism.
On 7/30/2016 6:15 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
What brand of Socialism?
On Jul 30, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Actually, there's a plank in their platform endorsing socialism.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 3:12 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Very Hard Sell
It seems to me that if you vote for the Green Party you are still endorsing
capitalism. If you don't want to endorse capitalism I would think that you
would vote for a party that opposes capitalism.
On 7/30/2016 12:05 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Kevin and All,involved.
You say you Waffled several times so far. I would offer a different
explanation for the process you are going through. It is called,
weighing the consequences.
I never did like the term, Waffling. It brings to mind Casper
Milktoast, the old comic character with the droopy mustache and no
backbone.
Another word I prefer is, Flexible.
As new information comes in, or as I review what I already know, I
have no problem changing positions. In my situation, once I came to
the conclusion that I am an outsider to the existing Establishment,
and once I knew that I can not support any person who approves of
murdering civilians, I have come to what may well be my final
position. I will vote for Jill Stein because Hillary Clinton has
blood on her hands, and appears to be willing to double down regarding
our War Policy.
Of course I understand where other folks are coming from when they say
they must vote for Clinton. They believe they can mount enough
pressure to force her to keep some of her campaign promises, whereas
Trump is a Rambo, Wildcard with no way of knowing for certain where he
will land on some very critical issues. But I am now convinced that
basic change must be made in our existing System. Corporate
Capitalism is failing the vast majority of Americans. If I vote for
Clinton, I am endorsing Capitalism, just the same as Trump's voters
are doing. But Capitalism is not doing anything for me and the
Working Class. Remember those Glory Days when we had the Seattle
Supersonics? We would shell out our money to buy overpriced tickets
and scream until hoarse. We thought we had a team. We thought we
were part of that team. But those in control, the owners, never saw
it that way. Turned out that our Entertainment was actually their
business. And when they had a better offer, they took their business
to another place where new fans believed that they now had a Team of
their very own.
Seattle is attempting to bring a new team to town. But unless the
basic basketball "laws" are changed, we fans will simply be set up
again.
And so it is with our government. The "Owners" of the government will
move it this way and that way to satisfy their needs. The rest of us
are simply here to pay the bills.
Changing the Captains of the two Teams is not going to bring us any
closer to having a government that includes all of us. Besides, we
know that Change does not come from the top down. Change comes
bubbling up from the bottom. We need to take the time to plan
together, and develop a People's government built upon the backs of
the working class, and creating ways to represent All Americans
fairly.
Once we have included ourselves, we will have good reason to become
showmanship in a controlled atmosphere and arena.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/30/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:I agree with all of this. And in fact if I lived in a Trump free safe
zone I would likely cast a Green Party protest vote.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alice Dampman Humel
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 10:43 AM
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
route.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
slim hope.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
theShe'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 <mailto: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
that abeginning 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
morallymovement 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
states.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>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
harcz Comcast
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:42 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Very Hard Sell
In addition I think the Green Party is only on the ballot in 37
----- Original Message -----
From: Alice Dampman Humel <mailto:alicedh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Kevin LaRose
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto:kl1964@xxxxxxxxxx>
