Do the US Greens Favor the Republican Party?

[lpetrich]

The Green Party Openly Preferred George W. Bush in 2000 and Openly Prefers Donald Trump Now​
Jill Stein:

On the issue of war… it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump, who does not want to go to war with Russia. He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow.

That is so silly that I don't know where to begin.

Author Bo Gardiner then continued with

The Greens’ Republican preference is madness but faithfully adheres to Nader’s description of the Green plan to assist Republican candidates in order to heighten public anger and desire for revolt. In that light, they must see Donald Trump as a dream come true.

Meaning that the Greens are acting like some extreme left-wingers, opposing moderates and "reformists" and hoping to provoke repression, in order to make the people revolt.

Jill Stein's positions are close to Hillary Clinton's, so JS would take votes away from HC. But Gary Johnson's positions are rather Republican-like, though he says things that some Democrats may like.

Back in 2000, Ralph Nader was clear about who he preferred:

Then asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush… If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

When asked

“Since you’re planning to raise $5 million and run hard this year, does that mean you would not have a problem providing the margin of defeat for Gore?”

he responded

“I would not — not at all,” Nader answered. “I’d rather have a provocateur than an anesthetizer in the White House. “

Something he had repeated several times.

Like

Nader often makes this “the worse, the better” point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment… Nader understands that his movement thrives on misery.

Why RN campaigned in battleground states instead of in safe states:

With just a flicker of smile, he answered, “Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them.”

Author BG:

The similarities between Nader and Stein are remarkable and run deep. They share an identical approach when asked about their strategy’s impact on real lives, using contemptuous non-answers composed of “made-for-television nonsequiturs.”

...
It’s an odd schizophrenia of the Greens, this idea that “the parties are the same, but it’s better if the GOP gets in.” Nader’s stock line when insisting there was no significant difference between the two major parties was calling them twins named “Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum.” The claim is breathtakingly oblivious to the reality of the impact on actual human lives beyond the Greens’ ivory tower.

...

When will Greens take responsibility for Bush’s Iraq war and environmental devastation?

Author BG continued with noting how little support the Green Party has from a wide spectrum of activists, from ethnic-minority ones to feminists to gay-rights ones to environmentalists to labor unionists.

RN did not stop in 2000. He was completely unapologetic about helping George W. Bush become President, and he pledged to help Republicans again in 2002.

Author BG:

Political scientists agree that the Green Party indeed gave the world President George W. Bush

Though any of many factors could have swung the race Gore’s way, political scientists agree on one factor: that without Nader, Gore would have been President. Pat Buchanan, they concluded, might just as easily have had a similar impact on Bush.

But Pat Buchanan dropped out of sight during the final months of the campaign.

BG then asks "Will the Greens use their final weeks to target swing states as Nader did?"

An issue that BG did not get into has been the rumors that the Republican Party has been supporting the Green Party behind the scenes. That may explain a lot of Green Republican-loving. But even if Green Republican-loving has had no support from the Republican Party, the record of it ought to be damning enough.

 

[funinspace]

It's not easy being green.






PS Interesting and strange though, as I wasn't plugged into those notions.

 

[Tigers!]

Why not ask them?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Analyzing green parties all over the planet is interesting. They're very different. But they do have commonalities. They do seem very populistic, while at the same time secretly wishing they'll never win because their policies aren't really based on reality. This isn't saying global warming isn't real. But I don't think the policies from Green Parties are about that. They're about saving various spotted owls, dolphins and fluffy bunnies.

 

[bilby]

Analyzing green parties all over the planet is interesting. They're very different. But they do have commonalities. They do seem very populistic, while at the same time secretly wishing they'll never win because their policies aren't really based on reality. This isn't saying global warming isn't real. But I don't think the policies from Green Parties are about that. They're about saving various spotted owls, dolphins and fluffy bunnies.

The Greens need to decide whether they hate climate change more than they hate nuclear power.

Until their decision on that question is based on scientific consensus, rather than a desire not to lose face after decades of opposition to nuclear power, they will remain irrelevant.

Which is a shame, because they are playing dog-in-the-manger, and blocking any serious political options from arising for those of us who recognise that climate change requires immediate and significant action.

The Green movement are almost as much to blame for the climate crisis as the fossil fuel lobby. I would suspect a conspiracy, if it wasn't so obvious that incompetence, rather than malice, is at play here.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Analyzing green parties all over the planet is interesting. They're very different. But they do have commonalities. They do seem very populistic, while at the same time secretly wishing they'll never win because their policies aren't really based on reality. This isn't saying global warming isn't real. But I don't think the policies from Green Parties are about that. They're about saving various spotted owls, dolphins and fluffy bunnies.

The Greens need to decide whether they hate climate change more than they hate nuclear power.

Until their decision on that question is based on scientific consensus, rather than a desire not to lose face after decades of opposition to nuclear power, they will remain irrelevant.

Which is a shame, because they are playing dog-in-the-manger, and blocking any serious political options from arising for those of us who recognise that climate change requires immediate and significant action.

The Green movement are almost as much to blame for the climate crisis as the fossil fuel lobby. I would suspect a conspiracy, if it wasn't so obvious that incompetence, rather than malice, is at play here.

Comparing Nuclear Power to Climate change excludes a lot of factors. Also, Nuclear Power is undergoing a sharp decline by way of delayed projects and plants being shut down. In the first case the cost of construction is increasingly high due to higher safety measures and more exotic metals being used. In the case of shutdowns, this has been caused by the high maintenance costs that are invalidating the savings.

Further, it takes around 7 to 8 years or more to complete a Nuclear Plant. Also renewable energy is still small but investment has increased sharply in future research. Wind Power is not currently profitable but under development.

- - - Updated - - -

Analyzing green parties all over the planet is interesting. They're very different. But they do have commonalities. They do seem very populistic, while at the same time secretly wishing they'll never win because their policies aren't really based on reality. This isn't saying global warming isn't real. But I don't think the policies from Green Parties are about that. They're about saving various spotted owls, dolphins and fluffy bunnies.

The Greens need to decide whether they hate climate change more than they hate nuclear power.

Until their decision on that question is based on scientific consensus, rather than a desire not to lose face after decades of opposition to nuclear power, they will remain irrelevant.

Which is a shame, because they are playing dog-in-the-manger, and blocking any serious political options from arising for those of us who recognise that climate change requires immediate and significant action.

The Green movement are almost as much to blame for the climate crisis as the fossil fuel lobby. I would suspect a conspiracy, if it wasn't so obvious that incompetence, rather than malice, is at play here.

Comparing Nuclear Power to Climate change excludes a lot of factors. Also, Nuclear Power is undergoing a sharp decline by way of delayed projects and plants being shut down. In the first case the cost of construction is increasingly high due to higher safety measures and more exotic metals being used. In the case of shutdowns, this has been caused by the high maintenance costs that are invalidating the savings.

Further, it takes around 7 to 8 years or more to complete a Nuclear Plant. Also renewable energy is still small but investment has increased sharply in future research. Wind Power is not currently profitable but under development.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Green Party Openly Preferred George W. Bush in 2000 and Openly Prefers Donald Trump Now​
Jill Stein:

That is so silly that I don't know where to begin.

Author Bo Gardiner then continued with

The Greens’ Republican preference is madness but faithfully adheres to Nader’s description of the Green plan to assist Republican candidates in order to heighten public anger and desire for revolt. In that light, they must see Donald Trump as a dream come true.

Meaning that the Greens are acting like some extreme left-wingers, opposing moderates and "reformists" and hoping to provoke repression, in order to make the people revolt.

Jill Stein's positions are close to Hillary Clinton's, so JS would take votes away from HC. But Gary Johnson's positions are rather Republican-like, though he says things that some Democrats may like.

Back in 2000, Ralph Nader was clear about who he preferred:

Then asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush… If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

When asked

“Since you’re planning to raise $5 million and run hard this year, does that mean you would not have a problem providing the margin of defeat for Gore?”

he responded

“I would not — not at all,” Nader answered. “I’d rather have a provocateur than an anesthetizer in the White House. “

Something he had repeated several times.

Like

Nader often makes this “the worse, the better” point on the stump in relation to Republicans and the environment… Nader understands that his movement thrives on misery.

Why RN campaigned in battleground states instead of in safe states:

With just a flicker of smile, he answered, “Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them.”

Author BG:

The similarities between Nader and Stein are remarkable and run deep. They share an identical approach when asked about their strategy’s impact on real lives, using contemptuous non-answers composed of “made-for-television nonsequiturs.”

...
It’s an odd schizophrenia of the Greens, this idea that “the parties are the same, but it’s better if the GOP gets in.” Nader’s stock line when insisting there was no significant difference between the two major parties was calling them twins named “Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum.” The claim is breathtakingly oblivious to the reality of the impact on actual human lives beyond the Greens’ ivory tower.

...

When will Greens take responsibility for Bush’s Iraq war and environmental devastation?

Author BG continued with noting how little support the Green Party has from a wide spectrum of activists, from ethnic-minority ones to feminists to gay-rights ones to environmentalists to labor unionists.

RN did not stop in 2000. He was completely unapologetic about helping George W. Bush become President, and he pledged to help Republicans again in 2002.

Author BG:

Political scientists agree that the Green Party indeed gave the world President George W. Bush

Though any of many factors could have swung the race Gore’s way, political scientists agree on one factor: that without Nader, Gore would have been President. Pat Buchanan, they concluded, might just as easily have had a similar impact on Bush.

But Pat Buchanan dropped out of sight during the final months of the campaign.

BG then asks "Will the Greens use their final weeks to target swing states as Nader did?"

An issue that BG did not get into has been the rumors that the Republican Party has been supporting the Green Party behind the scenes. That may explain a lot of Green Republican-loving. But even if Green Republican-loving has had no support from the Republican Party, the record of it ought to be damning enough.

Wow, those are shocking Nader quotes regarding preferring Bush over Gore. It deepens my dislike of him. There's no doubt that the environment would be in much better status if Gore had been elected. BTW: in exit polls that I have seen have shown that the Florida Nader voters would have voted thus: 40% to Gore, 20% to Bush, 40% stay home.

 

[Valjean]

Do the US Greens Favor the Republican Party?

Not this one.

 

[bilby]

The Greens need to decide whether they hate climate change more than they hate nuclear power.

Until their decision on that question is based on scientific consensus, rather than a desire not to lose face after decades of opposition to nuclear power, they will remain irrelevant.

Which is a shame, because they are playing dog-in-the-manger, and blocking any serious political options from arising for those of us who recognise that climate change requires immediate and significant action.

The Green movement are almost as much to blame for the climate crisis as the fossil fuel lobby. I would suspect a conspiracy, if it wasn't so obvious that incompetence, rather than malice, is at play here.

Comparing Nuclear Power to Climate change excludes a lot of factors. Also, Nuclear Power is undergoing a sharp decline by way of delayed projects and plants being shut down. In the first case the cost of construction is increasingly high due to higher safety measures and more exotic metals being used. In the case of shutdowns, this has been caused by the high maintenance costs that are invalidating the savings.

Further, it takes around 7 to 8 years or more to complete a Nuclear Plant. Also renewable energy is still small but investment has increased sharply in future research. Wind Power is not currently profitable but under development.

- - - Updated - - -

Analyzing green parties all over the planet is interesting. They're very different. But they do have commonalities. They do seem very populistic, while at the same time secretly wishing they'll never win because their policies aren't really based on reality. This isn't saying global warming isn't real. But I don't think the policies from Green Parties are about that. They're about saving various spotted owls, dolphins and fluffy bunnies.

The Greens need to decide whether they hate climate change more than they hate nuclear power.

Until their decision on that question is based on scientific consensus, rather than a desire not to lose face after decades of opposition to nuclear power, they will remain irrelevant.

Which is a shame, because they are playing dog-in-the-manger, and blocking any serious political options from arising for those of us who recognise that climate change requires immediate and significant action.

The Green movement are almost as much to blame for the climate crisis as the fossil fuel lobby. I would suspect a conspiracy, if it wasn't so obvious that incompetence, rather than malice, is at play here.

Comparing Nuclear Power to Climate change excludes a lot of factors. Also, Nuclear Power is undergoing a sharp decline by way of delayed projects and plants being shut down. In the first case the cost of construction is increasingly high due to higher safety measures and more exotic metals being used. In the case of shutdowns, this has been caused by the high maintenance costs that are invalidating the savings.

Further, it takes around 7 to 8 years or more to complete a Nuclear Plant. Also renewable energy is still small but investment has increased sharply in future research. Wind Power is not currently profitable but under development.

I was trying to formulate a response to this, but on close examination it appears that you didn't actually say anything at all, so I won't bother.

 

[untermensche]

Nader never said to support the Republicans.

He just said the truth. Supporting the Democrats is only a little different.

But that little can mean a lot.

Hillary Clinton never set US policy.

She worked under the direction of Obama.

Who was a major criminal with his terrorist drone program.

But Trump is an insane loose cannon.

He says whatever shit floats to the top that day. Then says he never said it the next.

Pathological as compared to calculated for Clinton.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Greens don't support the Republicans, but the Republicans do support the Greens. That's because the Republicans are better at playing the Third Party Game.

Tell a Republican that he can donate to a party that he is diametrically opposed to but can split the opposition vote and he'll say "That's a great deal. I can donate once to my party, and donate again to hurt the other party. I get to double-donate."

Tell a Democrat that he can donate to a party that he is diametrically opposed to but can split the opposition vote and he'll say "Oh I can't do that because that party is evil."

 

[DrZoidberg]

Analyzing green parties all over the planet is interesting. They're very different. But they do have commonalities. They do seem very populistic, while at the same time secretly wishing they'll never win because their policies aren't really based on reality. This isn't saying global warming isn't real. But I don't think the policies from Green Parties are about that. They're about saving various spotted owls, dolphins and fluffy bunnies.

The Greens need to decide whether they hate climate change more than they hate nuclear power.

Until their decision on that question is based on scientific consensus, rather than a desire not to lose face after decades of opposition to nuclear power, they will remain irrelevant.

Which is a shame, because they are playing dog-in-the-manger, and blocking any serious political options from arising for those of us who recognise that climate change requires immediate and significant action.

The Green movement are almost as much to blame for the climate crisis as the fossil fuel lobby. I would suspect a conspiracy, if it wasn't so obvious that incompetence, rather than malice, is at play here.

I think the problem of the Greens is that they're an off-shoot of the left who has a hang-up on rapid technological development and our "consumption culture". It's people who are feeling increasingly alienated from this world (to borrow a Marxist analogy). It has nothing to do with the environment, nor climate change. It has to do with identity. Greens care more about recycling than the impact of recycling. It's like the act of recycling is an act of ritual magic that will save the planet. I've yet to see a study that shows that recycling plastic or paper does anything for the environment.

For example, the Greens I know all live in houses. Well... the number one cause of global warming is fossil fuels used to heat (or cool) our homes and buildings. It's 75% of the green house gas emissions. It's pretty simple, if you give a rats ass about the environment live in an apartment building. Doing that is the easiest way to save the planet, as well as saving a shit-tonne of money. They buy Tesslas instead of having petrol driven cars. How about not using a car and taking the buss instead?

My conclusion is that Greens don't really care about the environment. It's simply an identity. I suspect it's the old judgemental Christian. Now when being a Christian as a method to judge others is less cool, people are Greens instead and look down on you for having too fluffy toilet paper.