Green Party’s goal is to make Kamala lose

[Paine]

There is plenty of blame to go around in 2016, and both the Clinton campaign and leftists can share in that blame. What, in my opinion, frustrates liberals/centrists about leftists today is their seeming continued ignorance of the implications of losing presidential elections to Republicans (in particular as it pertains to control over Supreme Court seats) in favor of prioritizing internecine squabbles with centrists who won't move left enough. You could perhaps somewhat excuse naivete in 2016, though it was still foolish when we knew for a fact one Supreme Court seat was on the line. You can't excuse it now, when we see exactly what Trump's election wrought - most importantly, three Supreme Court seats that titled the Court's composition for decades to come and singlehandedly did more to reverse progressive progress (and the prospect for future progress) than any other political event this century. Not to mention the continued acceleration of executive power and the continued dismantling of the federal government.

If someone who claims to be a leftist can't be bothered to vote for the left-most major party nominee, when it is 100% crystal clear that doing so means the continued rightward tilt of the all-important Supreme Court and the continued drift of our government towards authoritarian fascism, then they are either not really interested in enacting progressive policy or they are an absolute fool. i understand that leftists don't like the political system or the rules of the game, but they can't change the system or the game simply by pouting and refusing to play at all. Settling internecine policy fights between leftists and centrists about Palestine, the environment, or anything else needs to wait until the election is won.

Yes, I agree with all of this. That’s why it makes no sense to continue to talk about Bernie Bros. I don’t know why so many liberals latched onto this talking point. It’s counter productive for the outcomes that they want! In the same way that supposed leftists voting for the Green Party is counter productive for what they want.

 

[Paine]

Reminding is not shaming

This is not an election for the far left to die on the hill in protest that their vision of a utopian American society will not be actualized in 2024.

It is shaming to bring up a derogatory term that was cynically invented by the Clinton campaign to discredit any leftist critiques of her record. You can make the point you’re trying to make without brining up Bernie Bros. Just retire that term for the love of God. Is anyone still talking about Obama Boys?

 

[finesse]

There were plenty of us who pointed out that the biggest issue in that race was who appointed the next members of the Supreme Court. WE knew it was going to be at least one. I guess the far left thought that the more moderate Dems would carry their water for them in electing Hillary while they sniffed, looked down their noses and talked about how important standing on principle was. How'd that work out?

 

[Ddseddse]

This is exactly what I mean. When the term Bernie Bro gets thrown out there, a lot of assumptions are made about what that means. It allows people to map their grievances onto some “other” in the same way that the right does.

I’m not sure why you’re preaching to me in this post like I’m not going to vote for Harris. I realized a long time ago that it is best for my kind of politics that we have Dems in office at all levels.

The truth is, Bernie 2016 voters encompassed a wide variety of people. Some were folks who were just upset at the system. Some were actual leftists. Some were progressive Dems. To lump all these people together under one banner just to put the 2016 loss on them is not helpful in many ways.

It’s definitely not helpful to the marginalized people, many of whom supported and/or voted for Bernie, who you claim to represent.

I agree that what we do matters. Is shaming Bernie Bros, in the year of our lord 2024, something that gets us to where we want politics to be? Or does it drive away the very people we need to be bringing in?

There's only one assumption I'm interested in . Will you deploy your vote strategically to prevent another national nightmare?

That's it.

I could give a fig about a Bernie bro one way or the other beyond that. Believe what you want, work for what you want. Decry what you want.

As for me, I love me some Bernie! You couldn't grow a better senator in a lab. He doesn't have the Foreign policy chops to be a president, but that doesn't take away from what he does now.

But at the end of the day my thoughts and feelings don't have any impact on who ends up running the country, only my vote does.

The Trump presidency generated enough national trauma that there will be lasting resentment at Bernie bros, Green Party types, and other people of good will who in the totality could have easily prevented a Trump presidency if they could have just gotten over themselves for the 20 minutes it would have taken to cast a ballot for Clinton.

 

[Paine]

There were plenty of us who pointed out that the biggest issue in that race was who appointed the next members of the Supreme Court. WE knew it was going to be at least one. I guess the far left thought that the more moderate Dems would carry their water for them in electing Hillary while they sniffed, looked down their noses and talked about how important standing on principle was. How'd that work out?

Yep, I know. I was one of the people arguing this myself in 2016, and I would’ve voted for Clinton had I been 18 at the time.

What frustrates me the most about this conversation is that the entire left is tarred by the actions of a small minority.

Our political life is dominated by dumbs dumbs. There are dumb liberals, dumb leftists, dumb conservatives. There are also smart liberals, smart leftists, and smart conservatives.

Did some dumb people who claim to leftists vote for the Green Party in 2016? Yes, sure. Though it’s impossible to tell from the data how many of these people were Bernie supporters or leftists.

I don’t judge the liberals on this board by the dumbest arguments I hear from liberals. I take what each person is saying at face value and engage with it from there. I wish liberals would do the same with leftists. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[Paine]

There's only one assumption I'm interested in . Will you deploy your vote strategically to prevent another national nightmare?

That's it.

I could give a fig about a Bernie bro one way or the other beyond that. Believe what you want, work for what you want. Decry what you want.

As for me, I love me some Bernie! I can't imagine a better senator. He doesn't have the Foreign policy chops to be a president, but that doesn't take away from what he does now.

But at the end of the day my thoughts and feelings don't have any impact on who ends up running the country, only my vote does.

The Trump presidency generated enough national trauma that there will be lasting resentment at Bernie bros, Green party types and other people of good will who in the totality could have easily prevented a Trump presidency if they could have just gotten over themselves for the 20 minutes it would have taken to cast a ballot for Clinton.

Most Bernie supporters did vote for Clinton. That’s where this argument falls flat. It makes no sense to blame the entire left for the actions of a few idiots. It makes no sense to blame Bernie for the actions of people who may have voted for him in the primary.

The Trump election should’ve generated much more animosity towards neoliberalism than leftism. Whose purposes are you serving by discrediting the left in this way?

I feel the need to stand up as the board’s resident leftist. I’ll just leave the argument here because I’ve had it several times. If liberals directed as much ire at the Democratic Party’s support of a genocide as they direct at a small subset of leftists, then it’s likely this wouldn’t be an election issue to begin with.

Like I said, if we could just retire Bernie Bro from the lexicon, I’d appreciate it. The vast majority of Bernie Sanders’ voters in 2016 and 2020 voted for the Democratic nominee. You’re only pissing off people in your coalition by using that made up BS.

 

[Ddseddse]

Most Bernie supporters did vote for Clinton. That’s where this argument falls flat. It makes no sense to blame the entire left for the actions of a few idiots. It makes no sense to blame Bernie for the actions of people who may have voted for him in the primary.

The Trump election should’ve generated much more animosity towards neoliberalism than leftism. Whose purposes are you serving by discrediting the left in this way?

I feel the need to stand up as the board’s resident leftist. I’ll just leave the argument here because I’ve had it several times. If liberals directed as much ire at the Democratic Party’s support of a genocide as they direct at a small subset of leftists, then it’s likely this wouldn’t be an election issue to begin with.

Like I said, if we could just retire Bernie Bro from the lexicon, I’d appreciate it. The vast majority of Bernie Sanders’ voters in 2016 and 2020 voted for the Democratic nominee. You’re only pissing off people in your coalition by using that made up BS.

I'm not making any arguments against Bernie Bros. No. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I'm just venting a bit about folks of good will who are old enough to vote and therefore old enough to know better, who knew what the stakes were but couldn't get past their own self importance to do what needed to be done in the moment.

If nothing else, it's a great reminder that this is a great big cost benefit analysis.

If there's a random 10% chance that pushing the red button will kill you, but somebody offers you $100 to push it, do you push it?

No! You shove your damn hands in your pockets, kick a rock, and say damn I sure wish I had that hundred dollars!

Even if you thought that Clinton would coast to victory, do you lodge a protest vote? No! Given the consequences you don't take that chance!

 

[Paine]

I'm not making any arguments against Bernie Bros. No. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I'm just venting a bit about folks of good will who are old enough to vote and therefore old enough to know better, who knew what the stakes were but couldn't get past their own self importance to do what needed to be done in the moment.

If nothing else, it's a great reminder that this is a great big cost benefit analysis.

If there's only a random 10% chance that pushing the red button will kill you, but somebody offers you $100 to push it, do you push it?

No! You shove your damn hands in your pockets, kick a rock, and say damn I sure wish I had that hundred dollars!

Even if you thought that Clinton would cost to victory, do you lodge a protest vote? No! Given the consequences you don't take that chance!

Okay, then we are in agreement. The other poster used the term “Bernie Bro”. I’m just sick of hearing it and have somewhat of a visceral reaction to it.

I make all the same arguments to any leftist that isn’t voting for Harris, especially in a swing state.

The only people I wouldn’t make that argument to are people who have family directly affected by our military support of Israel.

 

[Ddseddse]

Okay, then we are in agreement. The other poster used the term “Bernie Bro”. I’m just sick of hearing it and have somewhat of a visceral reaction to it.

I make all the same arguments to any leftist that isn’t voting for Harris, especially in a swing state.

The only people I wouldn’t make that argument to are people who have family directly affected by our military support of Israel.

Yeah, at the end of the day I think we're coming form the same place. But there's real PTSD trauma there from losing a winnable election, I maybe vented a bit there. Sorry for the rant.

 

[Paine]

Yeah, at the end of the day I think we're coming form the same place. But there's real PTSD trauma there from losing a winnable election, I maybe vented a bit there. Sorry for the rant.

I get it. I just think blaming the left for what happened in 2016 is like blaming an individual player for our 70-50 JMU loss. The blame should be on the failed coaching. The blame for 2016 lies squarely at the feet of the failed neoliberal politics embraced by Clinton and the Democratic Party.

 

[finesse]

More of the blame are the gullible who distrusted her because of .at that time, 25 years of political vilification at the hands of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, American Spectator and others. The strange thing is that it worked on her as well. It pretty much stifled any spontaneity that she ever had and became that cold calculating person she was perceived to be. Well, was , by that time. It's a long time to spend under the microscope without being that way when a misstep was going to be so widely trumpeted.

 

[Paine]

More of the blame are the gullible who distrusted her because of .at that time, 25 years of political vilification at the hands of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, American Spectator and others. The strange thing is that it worked on her as well. It pretty much stifled any spontaneity that she ever had and became that cold calculating person she was perceived to be. Well, was , by that time. It's a long time to spend under the microscope without being that way when a misstep was going to be so widely trumpeted.

Yet another factor that is much more to blame for her loss than a small number of Green Party voters.

That being said, there were legitimate criticisms of her record. That’s why Bernie got so much support in the primary.

 

[rodoheel]

I feel the need to stand up as the board’s resident leftist. I’ll just leave the argument here because I’ve had it several times. If liberals directed as much ire at the Democratic Party’s support of a genocide as they direct at a small subset of leftists, then it’s likely this wouldn’t be an election issue to begin with.

I'll bite on this one, as someone who considers himself roughly poised between a "liberal" and a "leftist." The Democratic Party does not "support a genocide." Liberals, by and large, do not "support a genocide." Many liberals, as well as the current Democratic administration, have been critical of Israel's government. Netanyahu is a right-wing thug is not popular at all among liberals, even Jewish liberals. The administration has attempted to use its political power and influence to change and moderate Israel's conduct, though I know it has not done so nearly strongly or publicly enough for pro-Palestinian leftists. But the administration is walking a fine line because it must also keep in mind, in an election year, the large number of "liberals" (and persuadable moderates) who either support Israel or are conflicted about whose side to take in the never-ending Middle Eastern debacle. The administration also has to consider that complete withdrawal of weapons and aid to Israel would strengthen and embolden Iran and its proxies in the Middle East. And whatever anyone thinks about Israel's callous campaign of death and destruction directed at Palestine and now Lebanon, no one (at least no one reasonable) thinks Iran is the "good guys" or is anything but a bitter geopolitical enemy of the US.

So what leftists should realize and acknowledge about Gaza and Israel is that even if you think the situation is morally simple and straightforward that it is nothing close to politically straightforward and simple. But instead, not only do leftists not acknowledge that the situation is politically complicated, they castigate the entire Democratic Party as "supporting a genocide," despite any reasonable person recognizing that this is unfairly reductive at best and outright deceptive at worst. It is simply naive and unrealistic to think that, in an election year, with so much at stake, Democrats should torpedo their electoral prospects simply to take the moral high ground on the Israel/Palestine issue. That is the continuous problem with leftists: they would rather be right than win. If your goal is to win the moral argument, by all means continue to accuse the Democratic Party of "supporting genocide," something that helps push leftist voters away. But if your goal is to save as many innocent Palestinians and Lebanese as possible, then we need to focus for now on supporting the only presidential candidate and party who have shown the remotest willingness to care about Palestinians and push back against Israel, rather than the party who will gleefully stand aside as Israel nukes Gaza to the ground then builds a shopping mall on the ruins. The attempts to move the party and electorate leftwards on the issue can come after that.

 

[Paine]

I'll bite on this one, as someone who considers himself roughly poised between a "liberal" and a "leftist." The Democratic Party does not "support a genocide." Liberals, by and large, do not "support a genocide." Many liberals, as well as the current Democratic administration, have been critical of Israel's government. Netanyahu is a right-wing thug is not popular at all among liberals, even Jewish liberals. The administration has attempted to use its political power and influence to change and moderate Israel's conduct, though I know it has not done so nearly strongly or publicly enough for pro-Palestinian leftists. But the administration is walking a fine line because it must also keep in mind, in an election year, the large number of "liberals" (and persuadable moderates) who either support Israel or are conflicted about whose side to take in the never-ending Middle Eastern debacle. The administration also has to consider that complete withdrawal of weapons and aid to Israel would strengthen and embolden Iran and its proxies in the Middle East. And whatever anyone thinks about Israel's callous campaign of death and destruction directed at Palestine and now Lebanon, no one (at least no one reasonable) thinks Iran is the "good guys" or is anything but a bitter geopolitical enemy of the US.

So what leftists should realize and acknowledge about Gaza and Israel is that even if you think the situation is morally simple and straightforward that it is nothing close to politically straightforward and simple. But instead, not only do leftists not acknowledge that the situation is politically complicated, they castigate the entire Democratic Party as "supporting a genocide," despite any reasonable person recognizing that this is unfairly reductive at best and outright deceptive at worst. It is simply naive and unrealistic to think that, in an election year, with so much at stake, Democrats should torpedo their electoral prospects simply to take the moral high ground on the Israel/Palestine issue. That is the continuous problem with leftists: they would rather be right than win. If your goal is to win the moral argument, by all means continue to accuse the Democratic Party of "supporting genocide," something that helps push leftist voters away. But if your goal is to save as many innocent Palestinians and Lebanese as possible, then we need to focus for now on supporting the only presidential candidate and party who have shown the remotest willingness to care about Palestinians and push back against Israel, rather than the party who will gleefully stand aside as Israel nukes Gaza to the ground then builds a shopping mall on the ruins. The attempts to move the party and electorate leftwards on the issue can come after that.

It’s not about moral high ground for me. I think Harris continuing Biden’s stance is actively hurting her electoral chances. I shouldn’t have said the Democratic Party is responsible for a genocide, because it’s really just the Biden administration.

Biden has had a year now to use leverage to stop Israel’s actions by cutting off offensive weapons to them under international and U.S. law. It’s not leaving them defenseless to take away the 2,000 lb bombs they drop on Gaza.

Biden is out to lunch on this issue. Why is Brett McGurk running our foreign policy? Why is he able to make decisions overriding DoD and the State Department? And by the way, getting rid of Netanyahu isn’t going to magically solve these issues.

It’s gaslighting to say we can’t do anything about this in an election year when the administration has had four years to work on this. Clearly it wasn’t a priority for them. Nor was diplomatic engagement with Iran. Why not try to reenter into the nuclear deal?

All Harris has to do is make it clear that her administration will follow international law. Something the Biden admin is not currently doing. There is no evidence that her saying this will “torpedo” her election prospects. Nowhere have I advocated for Harris coming out in favor of a complete withdrawal of weapons and aid to Israel.

 

[StrangePackage]

stein herself, sure.

but how TF did the green party become hostage to this absolute nonsense? are there no adults in the room over there? wtf?

They have no money. No donors, no party apparatus.

Putin is paying to keep the lights on, so he gets to pick the candidate.

 

[StrangePackage]

Is the solution to the Israel problem to elect more progressive upstarts like Fetterman?

The solution to the Israel problem is to have two reasonable parties sit down and agree to difficult concessions on both ends to attain a lasting, workable peace.

In other words it's completely out of American hands, and suggesting that the Biden Administration is to blame for what the Israeli government chooses to do is asinine.

 

[Paine]

The solution to the Israel problem is to have two reasonable parties sit down and agree to difficult concessions on both ends to attain a lasting, workable peace.

In other words it's completely out of American hands, and suggesting that the Biden Administration is to blame for what the Israeli government chooses to do is asinine.

They’re doing it with weapons that we give to them.

Members of Biden’s White House are going against DoD, DoS, and CIA recommendations in order to encourage Israel to attack Lebanon.

Saying that there is nothing the Biden admin. can do to stop this is what’s asinine. They should’ve cut off certain offensive weapons months ago if they were serious about a ceasefire. The U.K. recently did so.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/us-israel-military-hezbollah-00181797

 

[mynameisbond]

They’re doing it with weapons that we give to them.

Members of Biden’s White House are going against DoD, DoS, and CIA recommendations in order to encourage Israel to attack Lebanon.

Saying that there is nothing the Biden admin. can do to stop this is what’s asinine. They should’ve cut off certain offensive weapons months ago if they were serious about a ceasefire. The U.K. recently did so.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/us-israel-military-hezbollah-00181797

It’s hard to attempt a “two state solution” when one of the parties is a nation created by displacing the native population and the other is a state sponsored terrorist organization.

 

[Paine]

It’s hard to attempt a “two state solution” when one of the parties is a nation created by displacing the native population and the other is a state sponsored terrorist organization.

Agreed. That’s why a two state solution is a pipe dream at this point, perhaps it always was. At least as long as one state was an ethnostate. The solution is a one free state where everyone, Jew, Palestinian, whatever, has equal rights.

 

[rodoheel]

It’s not about moral high ground for me. I think Harris continuing Biden’s stance is actively hurting her electoral chances. I shouldn’t have said the Democratic Party is responsible for a genocide, because it’s really just the Biden administration.

Biden has had a year now to use leverage to stop Israel’s actions by cutting off offensive weapons to them under international and U.S. law. It’s not leaving them defenseless to take away the 2,000 lb bombs they drop on Gaza.

Biden is out to lunch on this issue. Why is Brett McGurk running our foreign policy? Why is he able to make decisions overriding DoD and the State Department? And by the way, getting rid of Netanyahu isn’t going to magically solve these issues.

It’s gaslighting to say we can’t do anything about this in an election year when the administration has had four years to work on this. Clearly it wasn’t a priority for them. Nor was diplomatic engagement with Iran. Why not try to reenter into the nuclear deal?

All Harris has to do is make it clear that her administration will follow international law. Something the Biden admin is not currently doing. There is no evidence that her saying this will “torpedo” her election prospects. Nowhere have I advocated for Harris coming out in favor of a complete withdrawal of weapons and aid to Israel.

I have zero problems with specific, nuanced critiques of what choices the Biden admin has made or not made with respect to Israel. I, too, would prefer that we not send Israel any more offensive weapons. I would prefer that we come out more strongly against Israel when it demonstrably oversteps. But I generally don't hear leftists saying those sorts of things in measured, reasonable tones. Instead, it all gets boiled down to a flat moral right/wrong statement like "The administration is supporting genocide." It gets boiled down to protestors yelling at Kamala rallies that she's a murderer and war criminal. I don't think that's entirely fair, and more importantly I think framing critiques in those sorts of terms is what makes leftists (especially young leftists) stay away from the polls altogether, or throw their vote away on Jill freaking Stein. It makes it easier for voters - especially young voters - to reach the simplistic conclusion that "both parties are evil" and it therefore doesn't matter which one you vote for, because Dems are just as bad as Republicans. When in reality, even if you think Dems are just as bad as Republicans on Palestine (which I think is not the case, but fine) they are most assuredly not just as bad on a whole host of other important domestic and foreign policy issues.