Age of Nader/Greenies please

I would like to know how old each Greenie is.

I still believe in all their principles, but decided it would do more good to vote in the primaries for Dean, and work for incremental chance. I'm 21.

I'm going to have to believe that Dean will not be as liberal when he's the Dem party candidate, much less when he's president.

I wish you'd reconsider for Dennis Kucinich.

OnEdit: a liberal education

sometimes, but he doesn't have it.

Kucinich has the anger of the left, but he channels it through screaming. He also has some really idiotic ideas like, "Let's leave Iraq RIGHT NOW in a shambles."

Dean, IMHO channels the anger of the left in a more constructive manner. He's a better choice.

and let the Iraqi people have their oil.

Iraqis can deal with their own problems. Staying their and continuing the unjust war is not right.

WE ARE NOT GOD!

Take a look at this analogy:

The city rips up your street with jackhammers on a project that was unneeded. Then they go home never to return leaving your street a massive hole. YOU get to repair the street now.

Come on..... Ya, the Iraqis own their country and they will deal with their problems, but we've made the mess, we have an obligation to clean it up, whether or not making the mess in the first place was the right thing to do!

Leaving Iraq now will a) lead to a civil war in Iraq b) cause even MORE Iraqis to be anti-American terrorists than the war did c) make the US look like jerks.

heh nevermind

to put my house back together after a robery. I want him out. It isn't in a criminal's nature to suddenly "help" in a way that is at all "helpful." Nah, fair or unfair, I just want the guy out and I'll fix my life on my own, thanks.

n/t

Dean is not nearly as liberal as he's being made out to be. I most closely agree with Kucinich. But DK doesn't have the charisma or speaking skills to pull it off, nor does he have the experience, being a "mere" Congressman. The fire he's got, and I will, however, cheerfully support him if he gets the nomination. Dean has the political skill to position his mostly moderate views as palatable to outright liberals like me and be able to appeal to moderates and conservatives who view Bush as radical, dangerous and fascist.

I think that all nine candidates have their pluses, and I hope that they all hammer Bush a lot more than each other.

A 'mere' congressman who was the mayor of a city as large as Dean's whole state and far more diverse. And who, while mayor, stood up to the elites at the risk --and cost-- of his job and livelihood.

That kind of test is one Gov. Dean not only never had to face but, given his apparent record of coziness with Vermont elites, would never have even seen as a choice.

Dennis is for handing Iraq over to the UN. That's not 'Let's leave Iraq RIGHT NOW in a shambles.' If you think otherwise, come up with a citation.

Every time I read something you write, I'm struck anew by how appropriate your handle seems.

I believe they have about the same chance of being elected. I hate saying this because I really like him, but not only do I believe that the country isn't really ready for him right now, he isn't the best messenger. I completely agree with him, and I still find him hard to listen to sometimes. For example, I thought he was terrible at the AFL-CIO forum. He did nothing but yell the whole time.

This is a primary election. DK gets his voice heard and lends his credibility to the other 8. He will support the nominee in the general election. It is the opposite of what Nader is doing.

nt

message, but I'm afraid he'd actually win the primary.

I guess you weren't in the audience, then. Those union members seemed to like him quite well.

how old are you...90?

OnNoEdit: and a registered Democrat

.

and I'll be supporting Dennis Kucinich in the primaries because he is the real progressive unlike Dean the dumbass

If a democrat believes in the death penalty. I'm a green.
If a democrat believes in sleeping with corporations. I'm a green.
If a democrat believes in a 400 billion pentagon budget. I'm a green.
If a democrat believes in moving nuclear waste across the country. I'm a green.
If a democrat believes in allowing presidents to declare war. I'm a green.
If a democrat believes in "In God We Trust" on our money. I'm a green.
If a democrat believes in the holding of men and women across the nation without proper cause. I'm a green.
If a democrat believes in lying infront of thousands of people during an AFL-CIO debate. I'm a green.
If a democrat believes in not allowing gay marriage. I'm a green.

I'm a green when the Democrats fail to do the right thing...which nowadays if far too often on too many important issues.

The democrats have failed as a party, they deserve to be whiped out.

We don't disagree on the particular issues, based on your list. Not a one.

But for me being a Democrat means that the principle of one person, one vote is of the highest importance when considered with other principles of: representative democracy must tend towards the one person one vote principle, majority rule, equal treatment under the law and due process of law. Freedom of conscience and the right to politically organize. The rest are single issues, that, while important, don't amount to the same level of political premise. I see these premises eroded not by Democrats, but by Republicans who are squarely against the principle of one person, one vote and who view ethnic minorities not as equals, but as a threat to their vision of "white America."

it on "republicans". haha...good one. Is this the entry for a career in comedy?

The only good democrats are the Green-Democrats. Those in the realm of Wellstone and Kucinich. And even they weren't perfect...but they sure the hell didn't support 400 billion pentagon budgets.

Give me a fucking a break.

Dennis Kucinich avatar, and last time I checked, he's a Democrat. Yes, there are indeed you can find at least one national Democrat that is conservative on any single issue you listed. But there are also at least one national Republican who is liberal on any single issue you listed. These people must represent their constituents, or they do not get elected. They don't go to the great ivory tower, decide what is right in a vaccuum and go forth and never change.

I doubt that you would find a Green who agreed with you on all the issues. I noticed that you listed unions. Did you know that Nader once bought a magazine and busted it's union? There isn't a Republican in Congress that can boast of such a right-wing act. Nader's justification was that the non-profit nature of the magazine made a union inappropriate as people would have to work long hours for low pay. Nader has managed to become a multi-millionaire many times over supposedly doing work for these same non-profits, which he invested in the monopolist corporations like Cisco, that made him even richer.

Now the union busting thing is a deal breaker for me. And if you want a break especially for fornicating, it should be for you too. Personally I can't think of a better reason for a break.

You totally missed my point.

I'll be a democrat and support a democrat when they believe in the right thing. Kucinich, most of the time, believes in the right thing. Gay rights, cutting of the pentagon and so on.

I'll support a democrat when the democrat is honorable and has the right issues. Otherwise, the Dean's and Lieberman's of the world can blow me.

and you said: "The democrats have failed as a party, they deserve to be whiped out."

It's kinda difficult to see you as a Democrat with such an unequivocal statement. Yeah, I get pretty sore about the politicians sitting on the fence too, but I can usually muster enough calm to realize that they have constituents and have to keep their powder dry and not slobber on it every time they are tempted to.

and maybe we can never placate them.


I like our mixed economy. I like capitalism as long as it's butressed by a strong social safety net.



I want corporations to be transparent. I don't want to eat the rich . I just want them to act responsibly and contribute their fair share to this country through progressive income tax.

Some of the socialist elements are a

Progressive Income Tax

A centrallized banking system

Free education

Minimum Wage Laws

Medicare

Medicaid

Social Security

Now, I defer to no one in my desire to protect these and other elements of the welfare state but I also want a system that encourages individual initiative.

You lose, then, because I'm a Green and I agree with him on all the issues.

'Nader' is not a synonym for 'Green'.

You vote for people you often disagree with.

We vote for only the people who represent us.

These aren't "just a few minor issues", these are fundamental paradigms.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but I'm feeling MUCH better now. I'm 26 BTW.

EDIT:forgot my age

but you can't start hijacking the thread till you answer it: your age please! Don't make me come down to Russellville and wheedle it outta yer kid sister.

Okay then. How about introducing me to your big sister?

My age is not important to arguments. If you want to argue, argue whether it's more rational to vote Democratic or to vote Green, not what is the Green demographic. That's completely irrelevant.

I happen to think Greens are young and naive, not old and cynical. That's why I want to know. I want to know what the demographic is.

I suppose calling people "greenies" is another slur they wouldnt appreciate. So, as a "Democrat" how do you feel about ageism and name calling? Oh wait, I guess I know.

You hate Greens, so why do you care how old they are? What's the difference? Do you have a point?

you want to know the age of 'greenies' with the hopes that the average age is young(under thrity at least) so you'll be able to label them naive idealists with no experience in life or politics.

But the flip side of that is the youth of our Green Party is sure sign of the slow and steady decline of today's Democratic Party. These young idealists won't sell out.

I've never voted Green before. I've usually voted Dem over the course of my voting career, with a couple of exceptions. I voted against Nixon and Humphrey by voting Peace & Freedom in '68. I sat on my hands once rather than vote for my rep who had sold her soul to the NRA.

This time, if one of the Quisling Dems get the nomination, I'll probably vote Green without a second thought. In ideological terms I agree with them more than the Dems anyway. I will be voting Dem for my senator (Patty Murray) and rep (Brian Baird) who voted against BushCorp's war rather than for it, as did the 4 collaborators.

I'm 59.

Trying to label us in order to comfort yourself. Yes, we're young idealists.

I'm a young idealist with an MBA, 8 years of enterprise software experience, and a business owner.

Oh, and the age is 28. Hope that helps in your quest toward meaningless labels.

Why is age important? Is it to label Greens as idealists? Unexperienced? Naive?

And what is up with the term Greenie? Endearment, right?

People like you are damn good at coalition building.

I had thought that most of the Greens would fall into the 18 to 22 age category. I had thought that Greens were young, inexperienced and naive. And while young is a relative term, they are not as young as I had hypothesized. At least one prong of my hypothesis was wrong.

Your ageism is sickening. Is that your way of building a coalition?

I haven't seen any Greens interested in coalitions. What i have seen is Greens dedicated to the destruction of the Democratic Party.

The Dems don't need the Greens help to destroy themselves. The DLC and Bushkissing senators and congressmen seem capable of doing it all by themselves.

you really should watch that because it makes your post less credible.

What I wrote is that the Greens do not seem interested in building a coalition and are only interested in the destruction of the Democratic Party. Your remark had nothing to do with what I wrote. It was little more than a cute quip that wasn't cute, wasn't wise, wasn't smart and wasn't on point.

The Greens are just a bright, solar-powered flashlight exposing them for who they are.

the Greens are the enemies of the Democratic Party. If they were anything else, it seems to me that they could find something to criticize the gops for but hey, we don't see that very often, do we?

Whose side are they on?

I think it apparent.

Greens come in all forms. You have the ex-hippies from the 1960s who wear moomoos and call themselves star-dust and moon-beem. You have the young malcontents just looking for a place to be. You have the socialists/nihlists who absolute hate the Democrats because the Democrats buy into the idea that the system works. Finally, you have those who are horrified at the corporate/DLC infection of the Democratic Party. This sub-group, to which I belong, is extremely skeptical of neo-liberalism. This whole notion of the unchecked free market sets us off. Specifically, I am talking about the rash of deregulations that took place under Mr. Clinton's watch. When you have natural monopolies, the public is required to have some countervailing power or else it is victimized by monopolism. Moreover, people like me are queesy about corporate welfare. If you want laissez-faire, why are we allowing the government to bail out failing businesses. This only provides an incentive for businesses, particularly corportations, to behave in an irresponsible manner--economists refer to this as moral hazard. Furthermore, when the government shifts its focus from the people to corporations, you end up with what Mussolini termed corporatism, and later changed to facism.

Nader had a purpose, as far as I am concerned. That was to bring the Democratic party back to its purpose--the welfare of the people.

and rational arguments. Most the folks at DU just want to scapegoat someone all day.

Why don't you point out to me any Green opposition to the gop agenda?

I hope you can handle this. . .

Greens Call for Impeachment of Bush, Withdrawal of Troops by the Winter Holidays.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_07_21_03.html

07.21.03 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On the final day of the 2003 national meeting of the Green Party of the United States, delegates from state Green Parties represented in the national party's Coordinating Committee approved two major proposals calling for the removal of Bush from the Presidency and for the return of US troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia and the Philippines.

Much more at this link http://www.gp.org/

and Iwasn't aware of those resolutions. I was mistaken in my remark about the Greens not opposing the gop.

However, there is more to opposition than resolutions. There is also the effect of actions in opposition. Do you have info there?

The Greens can't do anything politically to stop Bush.

EIther that or they don't want to. They would rather cower and move to the right. Afterall, they might be called liberal!! Even worse, the "swing voters" might ignore them.

Terry McAuliffe wouldn't even opose the illegal invasion of Iraq. Joe Lieberman sounds like a Republican (save your time and don't post his stats, I've seen them a million times). Tom Daschle is. . .where is Tom Daschle.

Meanwhile, Clinton promoted Corporate Managed Trade and Welfare "Reform". . .what a guy!

And to equate the performance of the Democrats in opposing Bush as being as ineffectual as that of the Greens is absurd. The Democrats have done a laudable job in keeping Bush's crazed extremists off the Courts of Appeal as well as stopping ANWR drilling in its misbegotten tracks.

There are countless other instances where the Democrats were able to muster virtually ALL of them to oppose Bush and when they had the muscle to actually stop him, they did. You do not seem to understand the concept of majority rules as well as the rules of the House and the Senate. The Democrats have accompished approximately a KA-ZILLION times more in opposition to Bush than the Greens.

is that the movement started long before Bush. It was a movement started with the Dems had control of our government. So why do you project the goal of "stopping Bush" on us.

One more time...our goal is to stop "the establishment" from exploiting and manipulating the population and the planet. We are Populists and the Dems are simply not that.

Why are you guys unable to stand up for your party for what it actually is? Instead, you use our Platform and try to tell us that it's yours. You have half the Dem Party using the Republican platform, and a growing fraction using the Green platform. Both are just playing politics and telling the people what they want to hear. They stand for nothing.

you go off on a tangent without dealing with a single fact laid on the table. Why do you bother to post other than to spew talking points?

There isn't much they can do besides run candidates, pass resolutions, and educate. They are trying to build a liberal grassroots movement. Unfortunately that concept is too hard to understand if the only thing you understand is Democrat = Good, Republican = Bad.

They don't have the power nor media attention that the Dems do (but you knews that). If you feel that the Democrats message is blacked out, trying being a member of a third party or an lefty activist.

agenda? The Greens can promise everyone the world and the kitchen sink because they'll know they'll never be in a position to implement that agenda. And even if, by some random act of God, the Greens were to ever take office, I would love to see how in the world they would implement their agenda with a hostile GOP Congerss that would be bitterly opposed to it every step of the way. Then again they'd still blame the Democrats.

to the GOP agenda. You know that and you're trolling.

However, my original response in this thread is still accurate and Jack Swift's post does nothing to hurt any coalitions because there is no coalition. All the Greens show interest in is the destruction of the Democratic Party and not with any coalition.

the Freepers don't see anything you guys are saying either. All they think is "they're trying to destroy our party."

WTF. We are all entitled to our opinions...and you guys have the nerve to tell us NOT that our ideas are wrong, but that somehow we aren't entitled to have them if we don't vote Democrat. This is precisely the attitude that makes people flock from your party.

If the Dems wanted or deserved our vote, they need to earn them with the right talk and the right actions. Prove it. Until then I there are two things I can do: 1) don't vote at all, or 2) vote for the party that I do believe in. Simple choice.

Duh ...

And yours too since we cannot work toward common goals. I don't give a shit what you say or when you say it. I responded to a specific post and you clearly are having trouble following what might be cogent to a particular point and what is not. The post to which I responded claimed that a Democratic poster wasn't interested in coalition building and I noted that the Greens certainly aren't. Do I need to break that down for you even farther?

Run candidates that reflect the left wing of the party. Come '04, I'll be voting Democratic - for my senator and my rep. I'll probably be voting Green for the prez if one of the four VichyDems who voted FOR the invasion of Iraq get the nomination.

Basically run on a platform that is unacceptable to the general electorate at large.

Besides that, they are a bunch of leftists. Ask yourself, which aspect of the Green platform agrees with the Republicans?

Perhaps the Greens aren't criticizing the GOP enough. Unlike the Dems who vote for their policies - or didn't you notice the four stooges who voted for BushCorp's war.


BTW - I'm a Democrat, not a Green.

nt

Worldwide party.

http://www.greens.org/

The US Green Party is quite pathetic.

who voted for BushCorp's war.

They honestly think that Americans are dying to be Communists or Marxists. They think that their 2.74% of the vote is some major movement even though TR, LaFollette, Wallace, Anderson, and Perot all did better, much better than the Grenes did. And so, in order to bolster their pathetic party, they have to attack the Democrats because they are so small. The Greens can barely win elections to the City Council and other local offices and yet they think they are on the verge of destroying the Democratic Party.

This place has been more into Green-bashing lately than Bush-bashing. Something we're saying must be piqeing your interest.

nt

Submit a proposal to the moderators that discussants must include party identification. That way, whenever G > D, we can just kick off the most recent login (or base it on some other variable).

This would be an acceptable prelude, no doubt, to the purge of Greens that many here would like to see, and it would confine the discourse to the gentle rightward drift that centrists Dems here advocate.

Happy to help out.

Which is, of course, why so many of us are here. uh-huh.

Like America is going to run to support a bunch or Marxist left-wing extremists who can't even get 3% of the vote.

if that is the case why waste so much of your god damn time on it?

talk about ego--yours is beyond measure.

that's probably why you and Ralph are archenemies.

I'm not a Green, but I am a liberal, progressive, leftist, whatever and I feel extremely alienated by the Democratic Party. Maybe the Greens aren't interested in forming a coalition, but I think the more important question is why don't they see a place inside the so called big tent.

Is the big tent of the Democrats only open to people as "liberal" as Clinton?

is only open to and responsive to the interests of millionairs with a heavy stake in the current system. You simply can't take money from big business and then turn around and oppose big business. To do so would be immoral. So the most "appealing" Dems are actually the most corrupt and disloyal.

They're standing outside peeing on it.

burning it

Actually, most of the Greens I know are dedicated to the reconstruction of democracy. If the Democratic party doesn't want to play, it's everyone's loss.

I feel the same way, but if he hears a couple people say it... then its everyone. EVERYONE.

First of all this wasn't a scientific survey. Secondly you don't know if they're lying about their age. And Nader did do best among younger voters. So you aren't wrong. You are conceding way too much to these left wing extremists.

what's makes them extremists exactly?

why is it that any one perceived as too left on this site, or voted/ is a green, is considered an extremist by you? BUT independents and other third party voters are welcomed Nahhh...courted and do not suffer your self-indulgence.

That language is straight out of Rush and Hannity's playbook. At least you no longer hide your hatred and opposition of the left.

but there has always been alot of tension between liberals and far leftists or radicals.

By radical I don't mean it to be pejorative. Radical comes from the word root and radicals want to make root change. Most liberals don't

Some folks don't know the difference between a classical liberal, a traditional liberal. and a radical and use these words incorrectly.

I don't mean to turn this thread into a seminar but that little discourse leads to my larger point.

Radicals want to destroy liberalism by maximizing the contradictions in our system.

I remember reading about how one of my heroes, Michael Harrington, a Democratic Socialist tried to get members of the New Left to support McGovern but even McGovern wasn't sufficiently left for them. They preferred to see a Nixon reelection because they believed things would get so bad the people would turn to them.

Radicalism and liberalism are different and radicalism is the enemy of liberalism.

he used extremist.

that word has a certain negative connotation regardless of the 'group' it is being applied to.

nt

They have no sense of nuance. They turn their opponents into cartoons.


To Rush, anybody with a D in front of their name is a raving collectivist.

not the entire left.

Is this an admission that your dislike here is a function of party identification and is not really connected to ideas? That is very much how it reads.

you're really something,Carlos.

projecting perhaps.

... reminds me of the Bush administration on global warming, oh, and the far-right on evolution.

Yeah, extremists.

of seeing the Democratic party evade debates with Green party candidates and thus avoid certain 3rd rail issues.

IÕm tired of Democrats who donÕt stand up to corporations.

Under chapter 13 of NAFTA, a corporation has the RIGHT to sue the foreign country
itÕs doing business in if that corporation can not run its business as IT PLEASES.

Even Republicans should be against this, as they hate to pay taxes so much, yet most Democrats support NAFTA.

ItÕs unbelievable.

How can you have a coalition with the Greens when we have a federal system with winner take all representation at the House, Senate, and
Presidential level.

Any political success the Greens have at the federal level as a matter of simple arithmetic must be at the expense of the Democratic party.

The Greens can not help the Dems. They can only hurt them.

That's not my opinion. That's just math.

50% of the electorate doesn't vote.
the DEMs could attract :eyes: more independent voters without being hurt by the Greens.

leaves options.

but we have winner take all representation so if there's a Green, a Dem, and a Rep. the Greens can only injure the Dems.

Same thing with the Liberterians harming the Reps. That's why there is alot of tension between Republicans and Liberterians.

they would hurt repubs.

right now, how many parties are there for any given election,especially presidental? (for the sake of clarity let's leave out write-ins) ever single party is competeing for the 50% of the electorate that tends to vote, although in off yrs the number does decrease.

Why the fuck does this matter?

I was curious. Ever been curious? Read my other posts here in this thread for more details.

And I was in my x's.

So sue me.

Hah.

Voted Green in Alabama in 2000. My "detriment" is the sorry Dems who hate me because I felt free as an Independent to give Green votes.

I am 39, married, father of one, civil engineer, only Green elected official in North Carolina and I am voting for Kucinch in the primary

They will never get elected until they do a better job at campaining. Who was that woman Nader ran with?? You see, she never did any campaining.

You can have the best message in the world but you have to get out there and kiss the babies and such. And yes that requires money.

Her name is Winona LaDuke. Yes, she did campaign, but the mode here is to make inaccurate statements about Greens, so I'm sure that the majority will not only give that minor error a free pass, but henceforth treat it as immutable fact.