American Politics the 2016 edition

Help support the Green Party to become anti-capitalist!

If you want to read it this is the proposal:
Proposed revision or amendment of the current language, or proposed new plank:
Greens seek to build an alternative economic system based on ecology and decentralization of power, an alternative system that rejects both the capitalist system that maintains private ownership over almost all production as well as the old narrative of state socialism that assumes control over industries without democratic, local decision making. We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built -in structures that advance injustices.
Instead Greens will build an economy based on large-scale public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this small-scale, decentralized system “ecological socialism,” “communalism,” or the “cooperative commonwealth,” but whatever the terminology, Greens believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice.
Production should be democratically ow ned and operated by those who do the work and those most affected by production decisions. This model of worker and community control will ensure that decisions th at greatly affect our lives are made in the interests of our communities, not at the whim of centralized power structures of state administrators or of capitalist CEOs and distant boards of directors. Worker-owned production, embedded in and accountable to our communities, provides an incentive for enterprises to make ecologically sound decisions in materials sourcing, waste disposal, recycling, reuse, and more. Democratic ownership of the means of production would decentralize power in the workplace, which would in turn decentralize economic power more broadly.

Yeah, for those who support worker run/owned enterprises, most today seem to feel it must be bottom up...which makes sense to me, using the gov to take things over to then transfer it to workers is an inevitable fail, but I do wonder how it could be achieved? Seems to me it'd have to be purely a grassroots movement, and even there....how would people do it?

JJLehto wrote: A Person wrote: The libertarian party has desecrated the memory of Voltairine de Cleyre I hear the reaction was awful to this guy, what about freedom!?  Speaking of libertarian fun in Florida, I hope Augustus Sol Invictus gets the nomination for his party for Senator...the goat blood drinking thelemite who's called for armed insurrection/new civil war needs to have a return to the news!

Libertarian Party (with a good percentage of insane people) convention in FLORIDA (insane state). What could go wrong? Or actually, what could go a little crazy? 

emigre80 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Oh Trump, god who knows! I figured he's hidden $ offshore/has shady things stuff that would look bad given his intensely pro America, populist rhetoric. It could be he's less rich than he claims, guy lies about everything else Maybe it's both.    I suspect it's both, plus paying low or no federal tax.    A friend of mine has theorized that the big reveal on Trump will be his ties to the mob, which heavily controlled many construction-related industries in NY back in the day.  Maybe still, I don't know. I'm not sure that people that swallowed deporting all illegal immigrants and banning all Muslims from entering America would care about whether he worked hand-in-glove with the Mafia, but this election has been so odd that who knows.

It is just a picture of Clinton with the son of a new york crime boss, I never said Trump is my man, you did.

^ I do not know what all that means. What I do know is you have been called out for demonizing peoples voting choices. What I do know is you are still doing it even after claiming to be done with this thread. I said I was not going to vote and still here you are saying I support Trump.

I haven't followed this thread much, so this has been probably been delved into before:

To be opposed to both Clinton and Trump seems to me perfectly reasonable. Everyone I know well abhors Trump (even if they agree that he raises some valid concerns that warrant discussion), as well as the demagoguery that surrounds him, but what has bothered me is that when concerns are raised about Clinton too many anti-Trumps have seemed to largely ignore those issues or minimize them.

I feel like many people are so scared of Trump getting in that they're willing to forgive or ignore Clinton's faults in case it jeopardizes her chances (in part). That's problematic to me, and can lead to a blinkered faith in a candidate. Open discussion and criticism from a wide variety of angles is very important, of course.

For any that may actually support Clinton herself, as opposed to only supporting her in comparison to the alternative, what do you like about her? What policies do you agree with that she has consistently held?

There is nothing at all that I like about Clinton and I would not vote for her under any circumstances.

emigre80 wrote: Her website, if you are interested, contains a long list of policies she supports. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/112-reasons-and-counting-hillary-clinton-should-be-our-next-president/ Doubtless now a number of people will pile on, giving me all the reasons why she does not support the issues she says she supports. Those from the right will point out to me that she is a left-wing menace. Those from the left will tell me she is a corporate shill. I'm fine with the left-wing menace part. I do not believe she is a corporate shill. Those who post trying to convince me of that, in the face of all evidence, will be wasting their time. I have been following Clinton's career for 25 years now, and have been paying attention. I support her because she is going to be a great president. I should add that I am a life-long socialist and feminist, and these are also reasons I support her. I think she has good practical policies that will improve people's lives. I think she will keep to our climate change agreements, and advance them where possible. I believe she will stand up for women's rights, children's rights, LGTBQ rights, and freedom of religion. I do not believe she will demonize immigrants. I believe she will make good Supreme Court picks. I will not stay awake nights worrying about her having access to the nuclear codes. I trust her to run our country. I'm now going to avoid this thread for the next few days while people berate me for these beliefs, because it's getting old. I only posted this list because you asked specifically.

Berating someone for their beliefs at this web forum is unpleasant. As is often said in civilized discussion, attack the arguments, or the beliefs, but not the person (which is not to say that I believe that people should never be attacked or mocked due to their convictions).

The website is of course biased, but I was wondering why one might personally believe in her. I should have also asked what her supporters don't like about her, but I wanted to be more diplomatic than that.

I for one won't try to convince you that she's a bad candidate in face of all of the evidence, but my opinion for what it's worth: I don't believe that she will be a great president as I think that she's a lying opportunist with a terrible track record, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I hope she lives up to the climate change agreements (the environment is one of my biggest concerns and is the main reason I voted for Trudeau in Canada -- done in opposition to Harper, I usually vote Green). I support equal opportunity for men and women, LGBT rights, but am not a great believer in freedom of religion, especially when religion seeks to limit the rights of the individual and groups, imposes itself on others, its values are antithetical to those of the nation, and adherents wish ill on the greater society. Great Britain, for instance, is certainly going through growing pains

It's a tricky one to legislate, though. Government needs to be intrusive there.