My one major issue with the green party

Having watched the convention and explored the green party I'm in favor of many of it's policies and goals. I intend to vote Jill Stein and support the green party this election.

That being said no party is perfect and in my opinion there is one issue in which the green party really drops the ball.

This issue is racially divisive rhetoric and policies. There's very strong anti-white, and white guilt based policies within the party. Things from reparations to pushing the idea of white privilege and calling whites racists.

This behavior and thought is racially divisive and the strong emphasis on it hurts far more than it helps.

In truth the green parties emphasis on combating the war on drugs as well as corruption within our legal system will solve more towards the problems within the black community than reparations and screaming white privilege ever will.

The focus on blaming whites, rather than the elite whom wish to enslave us all regardless of skin color is in my opinion going to harm the green party now and in the future going forward if we ever want the numbers to make a real difference.

We need to stop dividing ourselves along racial lines, be inclusive, and recognize that we are in the fight together against a corrupt elite and not each other.

I think the greens have a global agenda, they might even admit that.
The other thing is they are extremists, they can't balance their policy, they don't care about anyone but themselves and their own agenda. They don't care about people

a reply to: Raggedyman

I still prefer it to the global agenda of the elite that dominate the republican and democratic parties.

a reply to: Puppylove

Yeah, I think they are still part of the system you are, we are concerned about

a reply to: Raggedyman

It would explain the self destructive racial division so we can never be a real threat.

a reply to: Puppylove

The fact you are voting for 3rd party really impresses me, especially since you've analysed the options and determined that neither Hills nor Trump is really going to be good for the future of America.

One offers to continue the same journey, on the same road, the other, a different journey, likely leading to the same destination as the first, both endorse warpigging across the planet, neither interested in everlasting peace and equality for all.

ZERO the meter, rebuild locally, elect leaders that are accountable to the public, not shielded by moneybags.

This could well be the last opportunity.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I was never all that political til this year. I mean I engaged some, but the threat of Hillary and Trump has woken me up. We've gone too far off the reservation.

a reply to: Puppylove
I don't vote by party I vote by the person, I look at who they are and what they have done before becoming a politician, all parties have their own agendas and they never include me for any type of feedback.

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

I'm actually independent, I don't belong to any party. But if I'm voting a candidate and they belong to a party it would behoove me to consider not only them but the party they claim to represent for a more full picture.

In some cases by comparing both I can get more insight on the candidate themselves.

Like Gary Johnson is not a real Libertarian and is clearly a full blown plant for the take over of the Libertarian Party by the TPTB to replace the republicans after they phase them out since they're falling apart and losing the support, trust and respect of the populace.

a reply to: Puppylove

"This issue is racially divisive rhetoric and policies. There's very strong anti-white, and white guilt based policies within the party. Things from reparations to pushing the idea of white privilege and calling whites racists. This behavior and thought is racially divisive and the strong emphasis on it hurts far more than it helps."

I could be wrong, but I looked at the GP website and read up on their platform and it all seemed pretty much Liberal Progressive to me. As you noted above, I'd guess the anti-white, or as they now like to call it, "anti-white supremacist" rhetoric is and pretty much has to be the default position of a Liberal Progressive organization. I'd guess that position is seen as necessary to adopt to attract younger voters because that's pretty much the world view they're taught in the Universities.

I agree the racial divide is a serious and worsening problem, but I'm not sure there's really a political solution to the problem, particularly at the Federal level.

I didn't find the GP to be an attractive alternative for me because I didn't find much in the way of adult, well reasoned discussion of economic policies.

a reply to: Puppylove

In my opinion, green is the new red.

a reply to: Puppylove

Irrationality is attractive to many. Even more so in a herd.
A stampede of crazy can start with you hanging with your adolescent friends on the corner. A guy walks past and looks a little intimidated by the six of you lounging and being loud and looking hard.
That dude is easy to identify as : 1. A dude
He's dressed like a punk: 2. He's not violent
He talks with an accent (unlike mine): 3. He's not from around here
He's wears glasses: 4. He's a (pointy-headed) intellectual
He drove up in a BMW: 5. He's go too much money
Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
The only ascertainment is that he is different and therefore to be 'processed' by this jury.
Then you find out every supposition is wrong, just after you kicked his butt.
What happens then? Apologies? Retractions? Mortification?
No.
Most will defend their dumb behavior.
How do you react?
An external moral perspective, one not generated by the group, can allow for a different outcome. It also allows a larger society to form. Self educating pushes that change.
Apply this to CEOs, the Elites and their ilk. They are able to pursue their single minded obsessions for power, prestige and toys since they have no true sophistication in their thinking. They garner the assistance of the 'common sense' crowd by misleading PR. They bribe, promulgate and condone behavior which is contrary to the interests of those they are influencing.
The dopes keep lining up to assert their 'common sense', 'common core values'.
To convince people who are comfortable that their comfort is an illusion is difficult. To convince them en mass to change without trauma is impossible. They are protected from such trauma by being in a herd and 'echo chambering' like mad.
The elite already employ fear to manipulate in nearly every circumstance. Do we reply in kind? Is there a gentle way to modify the views of the many?
Most will run to a strongman to validate their rooted desires and false narratives and reject peace which would serve them better. The blindness to this is institutional. Religion, politics, schooling, work, media all press us into forms. Standing up to this takes formidable strength and independently derived information and stances. Most are too lazy and think too little of themselves to buck their riders.
I offer no succor here. Regular folks will continue to take their regular beatings and be thankful it's not worse.
While I will stand aside with a smug look derived form these thoughts. I don't have to be like them and I will suffer the consequences. How many can do this? I fear very few.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well, if you replaced the word green, with the words 'Republican Party'or 'Democrat party' the rest of the words in that paragraph would apply just as much.

a reply to: TonyS

"anti-white supremacist" rhetoric is and pretty much has to be the default position of a Liberal Progressive organization.

No. Not at all.

The Liberal/Progressives want things to move forward instead of backward, and we want everyone to have survival security.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

we want everyone to have survival security.

O.K., fine, but........how is it going to be paid for? That's the big problem I see and I've been a student of Macro-Economics for 35 years. So its not an ideological thing with me...........its a practical thing with me. If you think of Economics, (the Dismal Science) as a science, and you study on it..........you learn that there's only so much social welfare payments as a percentage of GDP that any economy can manage. I won't go into the complexities of the issue, but suffice it to say that the problem begins with ever expanding population vs. slowing economic growth. Which is precisely the problem had in the US. (In Europe, they have the opposite problem, i.e., shrinking population, i.e. reproducing below replacement level vs. stagnant no-growth economies.).

Another potential solution to this problem might be to link social welfare benefits/payments to a work requirement which is what the first Clinton administration did. Problem with that is that jobs aren't growing at the rate necessary to provide jobs for all the new arrivals. (born here + immigrant).

Worse, computerization and robotics and automation is destroying jobs, i.e., the job base at a frightening pace. Saw a headline yesterday that a new Tesla car plant will have NO people on the assembly line whatsoever.

With that bleak outlook for the economy and the growth (or actual destruction) of the job base, I'd guess we'll have to redefine survival security down.

You got a solution?

a reply to: TonyS

O.K., fine, but........how is it going to be paid for? That's the big problem I see and I've been a student of Macro-Economics for 35 years.

You got a solution?

Yeah, I kinda do have some ideas up my sleeve. You've been studying it since Reagan, then, right?
And you realize that it doesn't work, right? Because it doesn't.

So - yes - the solution is something I have in mind. I've been a student of human behavior for 35 years....this year is my 40th High School Reunion. (To which I will not be going).......

The rich need to pay taxes. Wall Street transactions need to be taxed at a miniscule (part of a percent) rate.

For my part? I give my knowledge and assistance out for free. But some people need to be paid when they do the same sort of thing.

Personally, I don't care - my education and intentions are beneficial to others, and whether or not I get "money" for it is really rather beside the point, as far as I'm concerned.

For me, it's more of an "if you can, do!" Because I can. So I do.

What worries me is the people who say "if it doens't pay, don't!" And I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT!!! My husband is an IT nerd guy (and also a veteran). He hates having to help people when he's off the clock.

There used to be this mantra - never work for free.

I actually fundamentally disagree with that premise, but absolutely respect his right to feel that way. I don't mind if I don't get "paid."
Sometimes all we can do is offer what we know and can do - for the benefit of others, and without regard to the 'compensation' for ourselves. There are rewards far more important and more significant (by far) and comprehensively greater than money.

a reply to: Puppylove

There's very strong anti-white, and white guilt based policies within the party. Things from reparations to pushing the idea of white privilege and calling whites racists.

dunno where you got any of that, but here is their platform.
unless planting conifers is some sort of reparation?
in fact have you even read it?

a reply to: stinkelbaum

Did you watch the convention it was filled with this stuff? Even Stein in her speech at the end mentioned Reparations as a goal.

I read the platform you just submitted, but that's not the party, the party is the people in it and the image they represent and stand behind.

I would have given anything for someone to counter some of the divisive speech during that convention. I want positive change, and division won't bring it about.