Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jill Stein wins Green Party nomination

BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:26:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.

^^^
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:26:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

Was she the only one running?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:27:21 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

5% Less for Crooked Shillary. Go Jill!
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:00:34 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:27:21 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

5% Less for Crooked Shillary. Go Jill!

Actually that poll still showed Hillary in the lead with 42 to Trumps 38 and a margin of error of 1.4
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party
And Americans who want to make an informed decision
And ex Bernie supporters
And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Trump

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?
Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.
There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Trump

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:13:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:26:37 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

Was she the only one running?

No, there were four others but like Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, she had no real competitors. She won all but 1 state, South Carolina, which went to Bill Kreml. The other candidates were by and large unknowns even within the party and Stein was the only one with a national profile of any kind.
There was a debate on RT America, which you can watch on YouTube.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:14:42 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:26:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.

^^^

So growing the party and raising our national profile which helps down ticket races is a joke?
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:18:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:13:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:26:37 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

Was she the only one running?

No, there were four others but like Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, she had no real competitors. She won all but 1 state, South Carolina, which went to Bill Kreml. The other candidates were by and large unknowns even within the party and Stein was the only one with a national profile of any kind.
There was a debate on RT America, which you can watch on YouTube.


Ah I see,

But on another note, I think Sanders would probably have a better chance than Jill Stein if he ran as an independent/3rd party. They both have similar politics, but Jill Stein doesn't really stand any sort of chance considering how little popularity third parties get (as unfortunate as it may be).

Realistically speaking, the election will either result in a Trump or Clinton victory, third parties are pretty much out of the water.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Trump

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:24:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:18:52 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:26:37 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

Was she the only one running?

No, there were four others but like Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, she had no real competitors. She won all but 1 state, South Carolina, which went to Bill Kreml. The other candidates were by and large unknowns even within the party and Stein was the only one with a national profile of any kind.
There was a debate on RT America, which you can watch on YouTube.


Ah I see,

But on another note, I think Sanders would probably have a better chance than Jill Stein if he ran as an independent/3rd party. They both have similar politics, but Jill Stein doesn't really stand any sort of chance considering how little popularity third parties get (as unfortunate as it may be).

Realistically speaking, the election will either result in a Trump or Clinton victory, third parties are pretty much out of the water.

Sanders is a little late to get a third party run going. The best he could do is join the Green Ticket as veep, which Stein has encouraged him to do.
Regardless, the goal is not the White House, it is 5% which gets us FEC matching funds
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:25:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:14:42 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:26:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.

^^^

So growing the party and raising our national profile which helps down ticket races is a joke?

If the Greens had some legitimate state representation (and they can start in states like Vermont - where they can merge with the Progressive Party, Washington, and uber liberal parts of other states), then they can start to grow to a point where federal bids in the House and over time the Senate are feasible. If they can get to that level, they would be a legitimate force in Presidential races, and the Democrats could possibly move left to encompass them into their progressive wing - if they grow enough.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:31:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:25:25 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:14:42 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:26:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.

^^^

So growing the party and raising our national profile which helps down ticket races is a joke?

If the Greens had some legitimate state representation (and they can start in states like Vermont - where they can merge with the Progressive Party, Washington, and uber liberal parts of other states), then they can start to grow to a point where federal bids in the House and over time the Senate are feasible. If they can get to that level, they would be a legitimate force in Presidential races, and the Democrats could possibly move left to encompass them into their progressive wing - if they grow enough.

Again, ever heard of FEC matching funds?
And we actually did have a member of the Arkansas House, but he didn't run for reelection in 2014.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:40:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:31:01 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:25:25 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:14:42 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:26:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.

^^^

So growing the party and raising our national profile which helps down ticket races is a joke?

If the Greens had some legitimate state representation (and they can start in states like Vermont - where they can merge with the Progressive Party, Washington, and uber liberal parts of other states), then they can start to grow to a point where federal bids in the House and over time the Senate are feasible. If they can get to that level, they would be a legitimate force in Presidential races, and the Democrats could possibly move left to encompass them into their progressive wing - if they grow enough.

Again, ever heard of FEC matching funds?
And we actually did have a member of the Arkansas House, but he didn't run for reelection in 2014.

Yes, and the Greens probably won't reach 5% until they start to grow without those funds.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 3:45:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:40:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:31:01 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:25:25 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:14:42 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:26:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.

^^^

So growing the party and raising our national profile which helps down ticket races is a joke?

If the Greens had some legitimate state representation (and they can start in states like Vermont - where they can merge with the Progressive Party, Washington, and uber liberal parts of other states), then they can start to grow to a point where federal bids in the House and over time the Senate are feasible. If they can get to that level, they would be a legitimate force in Presidential races, and the Democrats could possibly move left to encompass them into their progressive wing - if they grow enough.

Again, ever heard of FEC matching funds?
And we actually did have a member of the Arkansas House, but he didn't run for reelection in 2014.

Yes, and the Greens probably won't reach 5% until they start to grow without those funds.

Polls are showing we are getting close. We need to grow, and we are doing that, but we can't really grow as much as we can without this funds. Green don't take corporate money so we have a tough battle, but justice is not a sprint, it's a marathon.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Trump

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 5:01:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Drumpf

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.

Wrong type of matching funds. I am refering to the funds they get AFTER the election which go to the Party. This is directly from the FEC website

A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

http://www.fec.gov...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 5:11:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 5:01:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Drumpf

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.

Wrong type of matching funds. I am refering to the funds they get AFTER the election which go to the Party. This is directly from the FEC website

A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

http://www.fec.gov...

I understand, and I linked to her expenses from 2012. Look at the FEC entry.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 5:25:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 5:11:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:01:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Drumpf

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.

Wrong type of matching funds. I am refering to the funds they get AFTER the election which go to the Party. This is directly from the FEC website

A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

http://www.fec.gov...

I understand, and I linked to her expenses from 2012. Look at the FEC entry.

That has nothing to do with it. She had to get 5% to get the post election matching funds which can go to the party. The party can then spend that money on party business and other elections in the future.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 5:28:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 5:25:20 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:11:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:01:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Drumpf

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.

Wrong type of matching funds. I am refering to the funds they get AFTER the election which go to the Party. This is directly from the FEC website

A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

http://www.fec.gov...

I understand, and I linked to her expenses from 2012. Look at the FEC entry.

That has nothing to do with it. She had to get 5% to get the post election matching funds which can go to the party. The party can then spend that money on party business and other elections in the future.

Look, I'm not disagreeing that the party CAN spend the matching funds as they please. I am not disputing the FEC requirements for matching funds. I AM disagreeing that is 1) has been used for down-ticket races 2) that it is likely to be used for down-tickets this round. If they are saying that, I would call it a deceitful.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 5:29:21 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 5:28:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:25:20 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:11:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:01:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Drumpf

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.

Wrong type of matching funds. I am refering to the funds they get AFTER the election which go to the Party. This is directly from the FEC website

A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

http://www.fec.gov...

I understand, and I linked to her expenses from 2012. Look at the FEC entry.

That has nothing to do with it. She had to get 5% to get the post election matching funds which can go to the party. The party can then spend that money on party business and other elections in the future.

Look, I'm not disagreeing that the party CAN spend the matching funds as they please. I am not disputing the FEC requirements for matching funds. I AM disagreeing that is 1) has been used for down-ticket races 2) that it is likely to be used for down-tickets this round. If they are saying that, I would call it a deceitful.

Again, I am talking about the money they get AFTER the election. You know, when you can't really spend anymore money on that election because its over. I am talking about down ticket races in 2018 and 2020.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 6:04:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 5:29:21 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:28:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:25:20 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:11:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:01:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Drumpf

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.

Wrong type of matching funds. I am refering to the funds they get AFTER the election which go to the Party. This is directly from the FEC website

A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

http://www.fec.gov...

I understand, and I linked to her expenses from 2012. Look at the FEC entry.

That has nothing to do with it. She had to get 5% to get the post election matching funds which can go to the party. The party can then spend that money on party business and other elections in the future.

Look, I'm not disagreeing that the party CAN spend the matching funds as they please. I am not disputing the FEC requirements for matching funds. I AM disagreeing that is 1) has been used for down-ticket races 2) that it is likely to be used for down-tickets this round. If they are saying that, I would call it a deceitful.

Again, I am talking about the money they get AFTER the election. You know, when you can't really spend anymore money on that election because its over. I am talking about down ticket races in 2018 and 2020.

I see. You have a misunderstanding about how candidates finance their runs. They regular run in debt, and pay AFTER. Many, if not most, of the expenses are paid after the election is over.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 6:06:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 6:04:36 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:29:21 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:28:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:25:20 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:11:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:01:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Drumpf

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.

Wrong type of matching funds. I am refering to the funds they get AFTER the election which go to the Party. This is directly from the FEC website

A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

http://www.fec.gov...

I understand, and I linked to her expenses from 2012. Look at the FEC entry.

That has nothing to do with it. She had to get 5% to get the post election matching funds which can go to the party. The party can then spend that money on party business and other elections in the future.

Look, I'm not disagreeing that the party CAN spend the matching funds as they please. I am not disputing the FEC requirements for matching funds. I AM disagreeing that is 1) has been used for down-ticket races 2) that it is likely to be used for down-tickets this round. If they are saying that, I would call it a deceitful.

Again, I am talking about the money they get AFTER the election. You know, when you can't really spend anymore money on that election because its over. I am talking about down ticket races in 2018 and 2020.

I see. You have a misunderstanding about how candidates finance their runs. They regular run in debt, and pay AFTER. Many, if not most, of the expenses are paid after the election is over.

As of now Jills got no debt, and probably won't have any (Given the current spending)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 6:08:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 6:06:26 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 6:04:36 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:29:21 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:28:01 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:25:20 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:11:06 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 5:01:56 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 4:51:51 PM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:19:07 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:14 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:07:52 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:20:50 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

AAnd in other news - No one cares.

Except the 300,000 members of the Green Party

300k people do not make a national mandate. That is the point.

And Americans who want to make an informed decision

Me.

And ex Bernie supporters

I',m one.

And others who hate both candidates (most Americans)

Me too.


Look. The green party is doing OK. Running a green for POTUS is... counter productive
. The POTUS has to represent the entirety of the US, not just the fringe.

1) How is it counter productive if it raises money and volunteers, increases membership and raises the party's profile?
2) Then explain Drumpf

Green (and other partys) should run serious state/local or even congressional races, not POTUS. It makes it a joke.
Okay, so we should just accept the lesser of two evils instead of giving people another choice?

Yes. Run, and work for better candidates. You don't win national or state wide (senate) elections starting by pissing on better than 1/2 of the electorate regardless how much you dislike them.

Also we run presidential candidates so we can try and spread the party, grow our base, raise our profile and increase our war chest. Candidates with 5% or more get party matching funds.

The party grows by lots of things. Things like actually winning elections. There are lots of them, not just the big ones.

There are some party's that should just stop. Ie parties with very little if any ballot access. However the Greens and the Libertarians have the ballot access to hypothetically win.

Nope. Libertarians too. They are not a party for POTUS. This is the ONE leader of the entire nation.

You do realise there is this little thing called FEC matching funds which party's get when their presidential candidate gets 5% or more, right? And this funds can be used to win future races like congressional races, or local races. And in order to win those people need to realise that the party exists, which can only come through media exposure.

Yea, the matching funds are not supporting down-ticket races
http://www.opensecrets.org...

Is that somthing they are talking about? If so, its an outright lie.

Wrong type of matching funds. I am refering to the funds they get AFTER the election which go to the Party. This is directly from the FEC website

A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

http://www.fec.gov...

I understand, and I linked to her expenses from 2012. Look at the FEC entry.

That has nothing to do with it. She had to get 5% to get the post election matching funds which can go to the party. The party can then spend that money on party business and other elections in the future.

Look, I'm not disagreeing that the party CAN spend the matching funds as they please. I am not disputing the FEC requirements for matching funds. I AM disagreeing that is 1) has been used for down-ticket races 2) that it is likely to be used for down-tickets this round. If they are saying that, I would call it a deceitful.

Again, I am talking about the money they get AFTER the election. You know, when you can't really spend anymore money on that election because its over. I am talking about down ticket races in 2018 and 2020.

I see. You have a misunderstanding about how candidates finance their runs. They regular run in debt, and pay AFTER. Many, if not most, of the expenses are paid after the election is over.

As of now Jills got no debt, and probably won't have any (Given the current spending)

OK. Whatever. I have shown you the matching funds were consumed in the last race (not helping down ticket), and are likely to be the same this time, but if you insist on thinking this - fine by me. I just hope THEY are not implying that the matching funds will finance down-ticket. That, as I said, is deceitful.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 6:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
This isn't exactly surprising. Nice lady, incredibly intelligent, but a bit.... shall I say... crazy... on a whole lot of things, doesn't know what she's talking about on QE, etc.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 6:59:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 3:24:38 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:18:52 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/16/2016 3:13:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 6/16/2016 2:26:37 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

Was she the only one running?

No, there were four others but like Gary Johnson for the Libertarians, she had no real competitors. She won all but 1 state, South Carolina, which went to Bill Kreml. The other candidates were by and large unknowns even within the party and Stein was the only one with a national profile of any kind.
There was a debate on RT America, which you can watch on YouTube.


Ah I see,

But on another note, I think Sanders would probably have a better chance than Jill Stein if he ran as an independent/3rd party. They both have similar politics, but Jill Stein doesn't really stand any sort of chance considering how little popularity third parties get (as unfortunate as it may be).

Realistically speaking, the election will either result in a Trump or Clinton victory, third parties are pretty much out of the water.

Sanders is a little late to get a third party run going. The best he could do is join the Green Ticket as veep, which Stein has encouraged him to do.
Regardless, the goal is not the White House, it is 5% which gets us FEC matching funds

Sanders has said explicitly that he won't run as an independent, because he "[does] not want to be responsible for electing some right-wing Republican to be president of the United States." To that extent, he has more sense than Jill Stein.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 7:04:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 1:54:54 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
Dr. Jill Stein has won the Green Party nomination after securing enough delegates in the California primary. At the same time Jill Stein is now polling at 5% nationwide.

www.democracynow.org/2016/6/15/headlines/jill_stein_wins_green_party_primary_calls_for_inclusion_in_debates

Im sure Jill Stein will be thrilled when she gets a whopping 0.8% of the vote when the election actually comes
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015