Jill Stein and Green Party US platform

This blog entry is related to the poll:[2012 Presidential Poll] Emocracy Voting (Total: 9 posts)
It is discussing the poll topics:
  • Jill Stein (1 post)

Michael has asked me several times what I thought of the platform of the Green Party US.

The truth is that I never read it. So, before we start this discussion on the platform of Jill Stein and the GPUS, we ought to read a bit to get some background information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein
http://www.jillstein.org/green_new_deal

I attach their official platform for future reference.

AttachmentSize
Green_New_Deal_letter_size_printout.pdf221.47 KB

Comments

First thoughts....

I generally support the Green parties (in France as in the US), because I believe that our economy is but one part of our larger environment. The environment should be protected for our own sakes and for the sakes of the future generations.

Also, I support them because they would lead our world into the right direction. They stand for some important principles that are also my own. Unlike many main stream politicians, they are not bought by special interests and they honestly say what they believe, which make their speeches so much easier to decrypt. In general, I agree with what they propose.

However, having looked over their platform, just like for their French counterparts, I notice that some things are missing. There are exactly 3 areas of public policy that are of prime importance to me.

The first one, and I am sure it will not be a surprise to you, is the election method. I note that Jill Stein and the GPUS still support IRV, which is a big no-no for me. At least, they promote electoral reform, but IRV won't help much. This is why this site is so important. We need to educate a large enough part of the population that third parties like the GPUS switch their support from IRV to Approval or another point-system EM (Emocracy, Score voting...).

The other two areas of policies that interest me a lot are tax policy and a fair profit sharing scheme. This thread is not the place to discuss these in detail. I'll write about them in another place and start a poll.

My early conclusion is what I actually had expected it to be. I think that the GPUS and its candidates are a much better alternative to other parties. However, their policies do not properly represent my own thoughts. I am a political orphan who is not currently represented by any politician that I know of...

Reply regarding Greens

Augustin said (regarding the GPUS Greens):

Also, I support them because they would lead our world into the right direction. They stand for some important principles that are also my own. Unlike many main stream politicians, they are not bought by special interests and they honestly say what they believe, which make their speeches so much easier to decrypt. In general, I agree with what they propose.

Those things are enough reason to support the GPUS. To fully support their win. It's always a mistake to demand perfection. The non-Republocrat parties all differ on various minor points, and their supporters all reject _all_ the parties and all the detailed platforms except for their own. That's the route to nowhere. It always reminds me of the Liliputians fighting wars over whether a boiled or poached egg should be opend at the large end or the small end.

As Augustin himself said, _direction_ is the important thing. Direction, not perfection. Significant improvement is enough, for a start. As we move toward something better, we'll have a better perspective on what additional changes, if any, migh need to be made. So don't demand immediate perfection.

Augustin said that the GPUS fall short in 3 areas:

The first one, and I am sure it will not be a surprise to you, is the election method. I note that Jill Stein and the GPUS still support IRV, which is a big no-no for me. At least, they promote electoral reform, but IRV won't help much.

It won't need to. Remember, if people voted in Plurality well enough to elect the GPUS to the presidency and Congress, then do you really think that they wouldn't be able to make good use of IRV?

Yes, IRV is inadequate. But if the voters elected GPUS with the even much more inadequate Plurality, then those szme voters would do just fine with IRV, as inadequate as it may be.

Besides, in a Green U.S., there wouldbe open, free, public discussion and debate about which voting system(s) is/are really best.

Alright yes, IRV would have a serious count-fraud problem. But maybe count-fraud would be less of a problem in a Green U.S., where a Green administration appoints the counters. And, there would be plenty of opportunity to mention that problem, and for everyone to hear and have input. Don't be so pessimistic as to assume that IRV's count-fraud problem would be ignored, in the final choice of voting systems.

GPUS advocate IRV because it's all they've heard of. They're new to the subject. If they were actually in office, and the replacement of Plurality were actually being discussed because it was about to happen, they woudn't be able to (or want to) ignore all that they'd hear (all that everyone would hear) about the count-fraud problem, and the favorite-burial problem, etc. Don't be so pessimistic as to assume that IRV would be pushed through if the Greens were elected, without full nationwide discussion.

So don't reject a party that would bring improvement in pretty much all areas, because, on one or a few issues, it isn't perfect.

This is why this site is so important. We need to educate a large enough part of the population that third parties like the GPUS switch their support from IRV to Approval or another point-system EM (Emocracy, Score voting...).

I doubt that the GPUS are amendable to that now. Right now, they don't have to listen to anyone. They've adopted an official position in favor of IRV . As I said, that's because it's pretty much all that they've heard. Maybe the heavily-funded IRV promotional organization has wined and dined their leadership, I don't know.

As you said, they mean well. They just don't have the information. And the GPUS aren't inclined to change a policy that they've latched onto. Not a problem. As I said, once in office, there would be full discussion before a voting system is adopted, and everyone would hear the arguments against IRV. There's no need to assume that GPUS would push through an enactment of IRV without full discussion and evaluation, or would be able to if they wanted to.

The other two areas of policies that interest me a lot are tax policy and a fair profit sharing scheme. This thread is not the place to discuss these in detail. I'll write about them in another place and start a poll.

Well ok. I just brought the question up here because you said to ask you in the blog-space, about your opinion of GPUS. Of course there isn't anything for me to reply to, regarding your differences with GPUS regarding taxes and profit-sharing.

I'd have to re-check, but no doubt the GPUS platform advocates a more _progressive_ taxation. A higher percentage of income paid by those with higher income. I don't know the exact numbers for the tax system that they'd propose if they were in office, and most likely neither do they (they consist of many people with different positions, differing from eachother in many details). But the main thing is that they advocate more progressive taxation. And I _do_ agree with them on that.

My early conclusion is what I actually had expected it to be. I think that the GPUS and its candidates are a much better alternative to other parties. However, their policies do not properly represent my own thoughts. I am a political orphan who is not currently represented by any politician that I know

No two people are alike. But we don't support only candidates who are exactly like us. We support the one(s) who are/is better than the others.

I know you've already discussed Obama, and I won't ask you to answer again about that, but I'll just say again: Compare Obama's deeds with the policy-changes advocated by the GPUS. On the web, look at what Jill Stein, Roseanne Barr and Cynthia McKinney have said. Does it sound even close to being as bad as Obama's deeds and Obama's honesty-level? Rhetorical question. I'm not asking you to reply again regarding Obama.

I'm not singling Obama out. He's just the typical Democrat, no worse than the other Democrats and Republicans.

Michael Ossipoff

I do support the GPUS

Those things are enough reason to support the GPUS. To fully support their win. It's always a mistake to demand perfection.

I agree. In any case, as I have told you, the Green Party gets the highest score possible from me in every poll. I would rank them first in a ranked ballot.
In the real elections, in France, I voted for the Green party candidate in the first round of both the presidential elections and the legislative elections (earlier this year), although, like for their US counterpart, their policies do not fully represent what I'd like most.

So, yes, I agree with what you write about them.

It always reminds me of the Liliputians fighting wars over whether a boiled or poached egg should be opend at the large end or the small end.

Haha! Good one :) Which book is this from?

GPUS advocate IRV because it's all they've heard of. They're new to the subject.

Yes, I understand that. And that's why I am motivated to make this site work. I want them to hear from us! :) They certainly won't change their policy position this year, even if we write them a nice email. But I truly hope that one day we'll reach a critical mass that will make us influential enough to entice 3rd party candidates to ditch IRV in favour of the better alternatives used here.

I'd have to re-check, but no doubt the GPUS platform advocates a more _progressive_ taxation. A higher percentage of income paid by those with higher income. I don't know the exact numbers for the tax system that they'd propose if they were in office, and most likely neither do they (they consist of many people with different positions, differing from eachother in many details). But the main thing is that they advocate more progressive taxation. And I _do_ agree with them on that.

Yes, from what I have seen, it looks good enough for me. Regarding taxation, we can do 2 things: First, quote exactly from their program and comment on each item separately. Second, and more importantly for us, create a new poll about taxes. I'll use that poll to discuss in more details my own positions in that respect.

taxes

We can continue our discussion regarding taxes within the context of the new poll on this topic:
http://minguo.info/usa/node/146

Don't hesitate to start a new thread associated to that new poll.

Augustin: I had asked you a question.

Yes, I know that I just said that I wasn't going to ask you to answer more about Obama. But I'm not asking a new question. I'm re-asking a question that I already asked, and which wasn't answered.

This was my question:

In what way are Obama's words and actions better than the policy proposals in the GPUS platform, or in their Green New Deal?

In what way are we better off with Obama than we would be with the Greens, if they were elected and their platform proposals &/or Green New Deal were implemented?

In fact, is Obama _as good as_ the Greens, or Jill Stein? I'd bet that we both could name a few ways in which Obama is worse. Threfore, in order to claim that Obama, overall, is as good as Jill Stein or the Greens, you'd have to point to some way in which Obama is so much better as to offset the ways in which he's worse.

Or would you agree that Obama is worse than the Greens and Jill Stein?

Ok then, let's hear it...

Michael Ossipoff

Environment protection is important to me

In what way are Obama's words and actions better than the policy proposals in the GPUS platform, or in their Green New Deal?

In what way are we better off with Obama than we would be with the Greens, if they were elected and their platform proposals &/or Green New Deal were implemented?

In fact, is Obama _as good as_ the Greens, or Jill Stein? I'd bet that we both could name a few ways in which Obama is worse. Threfore, in order to claim that Obama, overall, is as good as Jill Stein or the Greens, you'd have to point to some way in which Obama is so much better as to offset the ways in which he's worse.

Or would you agree that Obama is worse than the Greens and Jill Stein?

The short answer is that in a ranked ballot, I would rank the Greens above any Democrat and some democrats above Obama. That already answers many of your questions.

The reason why I tend to give the maximum score to any green candidate, is that I believe that we are doing an extremely bad job at caring for our environment, and this is detrimental both to ourselves and to the future generations. I really wish the profiles of the various Green Parties were much higher so that we had the opportunity to discuss those important policy areas.

Now, as to Obama, we do have a difference of opinion. I started a thread specifically about Obama and his record: http://minguo.info/usa/node/144
We can move that part of the discussion over there.

Giveaway voting, contd.

Here's why I wanted to emphasize what I emphasized in my previous post:

Referring not to this poll, but referring instead to the actual public election in November, a vote for Obama is a vote against everything that we, as progressives would prefer. I mean right down the line, on every issue.

Augustin mentioned Democrat corruption and dishonesty in passing, as if it were one of several minor factors to consider. But corruption and dishonesty aren't a minor problem. They're something that completely disqualify a candidate or party from being good enough to deserve any support.

Look how resigned and down we've become, when we accept corruption.

Augustin said that Obama (or whoever the Democrat-de-jour is) is seen as the only way to beat someone who is even worse (the Republican).

Exactly. And that is the problem, isn't it. That assumption. That pessimistic, resigned assumption has serious consequences, big cost.

To anyone who votes in the U.S. : I suggest that the worst thing you could do in November would be to vote for Obama. The Republican is worse? Fine, don't vote for him either.

Someone pointed out that at least the Republican is a wolf in wolf's clothing, whereas the Democrat is a wolf in sheep's clothing. "Vote for me, I'm just folks like you; I'm for the little man."

Now, suppose we had Approval, Emocracy or Score as the official public election method. Then of course, if you know Stein, Barr and McKinney to be better than Obama, you could approve, like, or 10-rate all four, fully supporting Obama if you think you need him to beat someone worse. But what if the Republican has been finishing last every time? Do you still need Obama to beat the Republican.

So, a little campaign statement for the minguo presidential poll: Republicans have always finished last in Internet polls. The Greens have, every time, outpolled the Republicans. You don't need Obama as a lesser-evil compromise to beat the Republican.

That's in our poll. In the actual public official election, we don't know for sure, do we. But it would be worth finding out. And the way to find out, in that official public election, would be to vote for someone who offers what you really prefer, and not for a dismal, pessimistic, resigned lesser-evil. What's the worst that could happen? The Republican might win? So what? It happens every few years anyway.

And if you ask why the Republican wins so often in the public elections, but not in Internet polls, ans suggest that that means that the Internet polls have a biased sample, then I'll repeat another difference between the Internet polls and the official elections: The Internet polls, such as this one, don't have count-fraud.

Michael Ossipoff Augusting

Michael Ossipoff

Augusting said:

The first one, and I am sure it will not be a surprise to you, is the election method. I note that Jill Stein and the GPUS still support IRV, which is a big no-no for me.

Actually, IRV would be an excellent method in a Green government.

We must distinguish between two kinds of conditions:

1. Current conditions:
--------------------------

Dishonest, disinformational media. A public who believe whatever those media say. In particular, a voting public who are thoroughly convinced by the media that only a Democrat or Republican can ever win. When media commentators speak in favor of the Democrat, they emphasize that the Republican is completely unaceptable, and that a Republican win would be an unprecedented disaster (even though it happens every few years).

Given the above-stated beliefs and assumptions, a progressive's perceived best strategy, in IRV, would be to vote the Democrat alone in 1st place, even if you prefer the Green.

That's why IRV is entirely inadequate for current conditions. Current conditions require a voting system that meets the Favorite-Betrayal Criterion (FBC). Approval and Score are the best voting-system proposals for current conditions.

Green Scenario Conditions:
------------------------------

In this scenario, the Greens have just been elected to the presidency and most of Congress. In order to have achieved that, the progressive voters must have no longer been deceived by our disinformational media. So we have a less deceived electorate, one who don't let the media tell them what is winnable and what is acceptable.

Additionally, in a Green Americal, the media would be completely open, participatory, and agenda-free. There would no longer be any media disinformation. The media would consist of a free exchange of information.

So: The Green scenario includes a more qualified electorate, one who was able to use Plurality, and therefore would be able to make good use of IRV. Additionally, the Green scenario includes more honest and open media.

Under those Green scenario conditions, IRV would be an excellent voting system.

IRV meets the Mutual Majority Criteriion. That means that if a mutual majority rank sincerely, then the winner will be guaranteed to come from the set of candidates whom that mutual majority prefer to all the other candidates.

A mutual majority (MM) is a set of voters, consisting of a majority of the voters, who all pefer a certain same set of candidates to all the other candidates.

That set of candidates that they all prefer to the others is their "MM-preferred set".

Mutual Majority Criterion (MMC):

If a MM vote sincerely, then the winner must come from their MM-preferred set.

IRV meets MMC, and is free of the chicken dilemma.

That's a very powerful combination of properties. For a MM, there is no reason to do other than rank sincerely.

Yes, IRV can eliminate a Condorcet winner (CW). When that happens, there could be a majority wanting to replace IRV with a method that better elects CWs.

If, eventully, a majority decide o replace IRV, it will probably be with this:

Condorcet-IRV:

Do IRV till there is an un-eliminated candidate who isn't pairwise-beaten by any other un-eliminated candidate. Elect hir.

Green Scenario

The one, disqualifying flaw of your "Green Scenario" is that it doesn't not currently exist. We cannot have a discussion based on faulty premisses.

Having said that, and even though neither the Democratic Party platform nor the Green Party platform are ideal to me, I still believe like you that in the hypothetical situation where we'd have a Green Party government, things would be much better all around.

The question now is: what positive, concrete action can we take to promote the progressive agenda that we both believe in?

There are a handful of new members here who have specifically joined because of some diaries that I have posted at Daily Kos. Those new members have not been active here, yet. However, I am still working hard to create an active, progressive community who are willing to cooperate in order to improve many aspects of our society.

So, how do you think we can use this web site in order to best promote green policies?

Green Scenario

The one, disqualifying flaw of your "Green Scenario" is that it doesn't not currently exist.

Incorrect.

For one thing, if it were the current state of affairs, of course it wouldn't be referred to as a scenario. Without exception, scenarios refer to states of affairs that do not currently obtain. So, in no way is a scenario "disqualified" because it isn't the current state of affairs.

We cannot have a discussion based on faulty premisses.

Discussions regarding scenarios are common, necessary, and valid (to the extent that the scenario discussed has a likelihood of happenng that is comparable to that of alternative scenarios).

Often we, here, and at various other forums, such as EM, etc., discuss the relative desirability of various voting systems. The dessirability of a voting system depends much on the conditions under which it is used. I've already defined "current conditions" and "Green scenario", and so there's no need to repeat the definitions of those two terms.

...And those conditions are affected by the matter of how and when the new voting system comes into use. Here are two scenarios for the enctment of a new voting system:

1. Under the current Republocrat government, a new voting system is enacted. Maybe it's enacted by legislators (state or congressional), or maybes it's enacted by state initiatives.

2. A new voting system is enacted because a new government has been elected. The candidates of a non-Republocrat party have been elected to the presidency and most of Congress. A new voting system is enacted then, becauses that party has been offering that new voting system, as part of their government, should they be elected.

Of the non-Republocrat parties offering new voting system, the Green Party (GPUS) is by far the best known and popular. Therefore, I refer to this scenario #2 as the Green scenario.

If voting-system reform is going to happen, it will happen via a scenario such as these two--most likely via one of those two.

I claim that if a better voting system will be enacted, then it is far more likely that it will happen via scenario #2, the Green scenario, as opposed to scenario #1, which could be called "the Republocrat scenario".

Conditions would be very different in the Green scenario, as I've described, and, under those different conditions, different voting systems would be desirable. I'm not sayin that Approval and Score would become undesirable. Far from it, Approval and Score are good under all conditions. But FBC non-complying methods such as IRV and Condorcet-IRV will become desirable too--my first choices, in fact.

In summary, scenarios that haven't yet come to pass are very relevant to discuss, when comparing the merits of voting systems--because those senarios strongly affect the conditions that determine the voting-systems' desirability.

Having said that, and even though neither the Democratic Party platform nor the Green Party platform are ideal to me, I still believe like you that in the hypothetical situation where we'd have a Green Party government, things would be much better all around.

The question now is: what positive, concrete action can we take to promote the progressive agenda that we both believe in?

Vote Green. It's that simple.

And, of course, advise others to do so as well.

If people would look at a few political party platforms, and then vote in their own best interest, then the transition to a Green America would begin right after the 2014 elections, and would be complete right after the 2016 elections.

Ask people to look at platforms, to find out what is offered. Of course, we already know what the Republocrats (Democrats and Republicans) offer, because what we can expect from them is what they've always been doing, all this time.

When there are unacceptable candidates who could win, then the optimal strategy, in Plurality, is to combine our votes on the most winnable acceptable candidate.

I define progressives as people who want a government that is honest, ethical, and non-corrupt, for a change. A government that is humane and egalitarian.

So then, who is the most winnable candidate who could be regarded as acceptable to progressives?

Well, how acceptable are the Democrats, by the progressive standards stated above? About as acceptable as the Republicans. Democrats and Republicans do nearly identical things. Yes, Democrat politicians talk different about what they'd like to do--while doing the same as the Republicans.

So which genuinely acceptable party is the most winnable? The Greens, whose full name is Green Party of the United States (GPUS).

So, optimal voting strategy for progressives is to vote for the Green nominee.

Above, I said that, if people would look at some platforms, and then vote in their own best interest, then the Green transition would begin right after the 2014 elections, and would be complete soon after the 2016 elections. I'm not saying that it will happen, only that it could.

I'm saying that the transition to a Green America could happen almost immediately.

But, by the way, of course it doesn't make any difference how we vote, as long as our elections are illegitimate. Someone could say that it isn't proven that we've had fraudulent election vote-counts. But the mere fact that out election vote-count results aren't verifiable is all it takes to make those results illegitimate, and make the elections illegitimate, and make our government illegitimate.

There was an article in Harpers magazine, just before the 2012 elections, which told the astongishing, outrageous, facts about our illegitimate elections. I'll post, in this comment-space, a link to the article. Or you can find it in google, by searching for something like "Harpers, 2012, election count fraud"--That's how I'll find it, to post the link.

That article concluded with a paragraph that says what I'm saying here:

I said that big improvement could be achieved, by voting, beginning in 2014. But it's a good thing that November 2014 isn't here yet. Because, before those elections, we have to get legitimate democracy. We have to demand, and get, the changes that will guarantee a verifiable, and therefore legitimate, vote-count result for 2014 and 2016.

In some countries, people go out in the street to protest phony elections. They deserve democracy, and maybe they'll get it. That doesn't happen here. We get what we deserve too.

I refer you to my article about that at Democracy Chronicles, entitled "A counting system that works". It can be found in the right margin of the front page. Scroll down from the top till you find it. In that article of mine, there is a link to the Harpers article.

Democracy Chronicles is at http://www.democracychronicles.com

There are a handful of new members here who have specifically joined because of some diaries that I have posted at Daily Kos. Those new members have not been active here, yet. However, I am still working hard to create an active, progressive community who are willing to cooperate in order to improve many aspects of our society.

So, how do you think we can use this web site in order to best promote green policies?

1. Talk about the illegimacy of our elections and our government. Talk about the desirability of getting democracy, by getting a verifiable, and thereby legitimate vote-count in our elections. Our elections, and our government will become legitimate only if we, as a whole population, demand it. The American population must insist on legitmate, verifiable elections before 2014.

2. Ask people to look at a few political party platforms before they vote. Tell people about the Greens, and the improvements that they offer. Make it known to people that there are parties, such as the Greens, who offer the things that many or most people say they want, and who offer to fix the things that everyone is complaining about. Advise people to vote Green if they want those changes, because they are the most winnable progressive party, and Plurality's optimal strategy for progressives is to vote for the most winnable progressive party.

Scenarios

Thank you for correcting me on my improper use of the word "scenario". However, please, do make an effort to try to understand what people mean rather than how they put it. I'll try to be more careful of my choice of words and I beg you to also do your part where you can.

Vote Green?

When you write to me, I often have the (maybe mistaken) impression that you are talking to some generic American that exist in your mind rather than to the person that I actually am.

I know that you know it but may I remind you that I am not an American citizen and that I have never set foot on US soil?
Your invitation to vote Green is ambiguous. Do you mean GPUS? No, I will never vote for them for obvious reasons. Do you mean the Green party in France? I already regularly vote for them in the first round of our elections there.

Besides, I personally do not support political parties, but I support specific policies. Thus, I am not even a supporter of the French Green Party, even though I vote for them. Neither the GPUS nor their French counterpart propose a set of policies that satisfy me, although I feel that their policies are at least slightly better than that of other parties.

Now, if you wish to exchange with me about specific policies, we can find the most appropriate place within this site to do so...

Re: Vote Green?

Re: Vote Green?

When you write to me, I often have the (maybe mistaken) impression that you are talking to some generic American that exist in your mind rather than to the person that I actually am.

Well, when I reply to you, I'm talking to someone who has said what I'm replying to. If it sounds like I'm talkilng to an American, then that's because you've said things that are often said by Americans. There's nothing wrong with saying things that are often said by Americans. If American Democrats can defend the Democrats' conduct, then there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to, as well.

The topic of the Democrats, and what they do, could be called an American topic, and so of course when I reply on that topic, it could sound as if I'm talking to an American. But not a generic one. A Democrat-defendng one.

I know that you know it but may I remind you that I am not an American citizen and that I have never set foot on US soil?

Thank you. But even though you're not an American citizen, you still have a right to discuss American politics...and I have a right to answer you?

Your invitation to vote Green is ambiguous. Do you mean GPUS?

What do you think? I've been continually saying that, in nearly all American elections, the GPUS nomnee is by far the most winnable progressive candidate. So yes, I mean GPUS.

There is another U.S. Green Party, the Greens/Green Party USA (G/GPUSA). They were the original U.S. Green Party. It isn't a question of which one is better, but the GPUS is the Green Party that is the most winnable. I'm not criticizing G/GPUSA, but they didn't run a presidential candidate in 2012.

In Plurality, it's necessary for progressives to combine their votes on _one_ most winnable progressive candidate. That would be the GPUS nominee.

No, I will never vote for them for obvious reasons. Do you mean the Green party in France?

No. I mean, I'm glad to hear that you vote for your country's Green Party, but, no that wasn't what I was referring to.

We were discussing what to do. You asked what to do. I didn't think you were asking how to vote in French elections. I thought you were askilng what Americans should do. The solution for America is "Vote Green" (but first demand and get verifiable, and therefore legitmate, vote-counting).

I already regularly vote for them in the first round of our elections there.

Good. May they win.

Besides, I personally do not support political parties, but I support specific policies.

Incorrect. You support a party. You vote for a party. If you don't want to support party, then you should only vote for Independents.

Thus, I am not even a supporter of the French Green Party, even though I vote for them.

But surely voting for them is the most concrete form of support. Don't get me wrong--I approve of voting for them.

Neither the GPUS nor their French counterpart propose a set of policies that satisfy me

I guess you aren't going to say what GPUS policies dis-satisfy you, or what policy is lacking in their platform.

The GPUS platform can be found at http://www.gp.org

Feel free to answer (but only if you're willing to), regarding which GPUS policy dis-satisfies you, or which policy of theirs is lacking.

And no, I'm not saying that they're perfect, or that their platform is perfect. I'm not being defensive about them. Some say that their policies on immigration or disarmament are impractical. i don't worry about that, because the impractical policies won't get implemented. That could probably likewise be said about some of the most awful things that the Libertarians advocate.

So I'm certainly not criticizing you for saying that there are things in the GPUS platform that you don't like. And I acknowledge that you said that you prefer the Greens to the Democrats, and so indicated in our new Political Party Platforms poll.

I do feel that you (like most Ameican progressives) are far too forgiving and tolerant about the abuses of Democrat presidents. A Democrat president can do something that a Republican president would be criticized for, and most American progressives will try to defend the Democrat's abuses and attrocities, sounding more like Republicans than like progressives. That's my criticism.

But my main question is not to you, but to the people whose poll-voting indicates that they prefer the Democrats to the Greens (GPUS). I ask them to specify in whiat important way the Democrat policies are better, in their opinion, than the Green policies. By that question, I don't intend criticism. But surely asking questions is part of discussion, and surely discussion is ok.

Now, if you wish to exchange with me about specific policies, we can find the most appropriate place within this site to do so...

Sure. I was just replying to your statements at the places where you'd made them.

I'll just repeat this answer about Obama:

You said that Obama wants to do better than he's doing. You said that he doesen't really want to do the bad things that he does, but that he's forced to do so. Oh really? Is that like the criminal who works for another criminal, and who says, "I have do do what I do--You wouldn't want me to lose my job, would you?" :-)

Your defense of Obama in Afghanistan sounds eerily like what the Nazis said after WWII: "I was just following orders".

I asked you exactly what prevents Obama from ceasing to murder families with his drone attacks, and his war in general. He's the president, remember? The commander in chief. He could tell the military, "Get our of Afghanistan now, so that we can salvage some of our reputation."

As a matter of fact, duing the 2008 campaign, Obama repeatedly expressed his desire and intention to escalate the war on Afghanistan. How does that square with your claim that he's somehow being forced to do what he's doing there?

Time constraints

Please also remember that I am not retired. I have a full time job. In addition, I need to spend a lot of time taking care of my health or I risk to die fairly young. And I have many projects that I am trying to work on within the little amount of free time that have available. Thus, I certainly do not have time to reply point by point like you do. Besides, I am not interested in trying to have the last word. [By the way, beware: make sure to be much more conciliatory with other future members here. Already one person told me he won't participate here because he saw you were a member. As moderator-in-chief, it is my duty to protect a friendly, cooperative, constructive atmosphere within this site. I will take the measures that are necessary when the time comes. It's all Ok when you do it with me, but I won't tolerate it if your debating style puts other people off. I am having a hard time as it is to create a community from scratch. Please, for once, do make an effort to actually understand what I mean!]

Please, work with me to create a more constructive dialogue.

Above, I asked how both of us could use this web site in order to best promote policies that we both like. I hope that rephrased this way, my intent is clearer.

Maybe we can start from here:

What is your favourite Green Party policy?
http://minguo.info/usa/node/455