Should the Green Party be replaced?
It's beginning to look unlikely that Jill Stein will merit 5% of the vote this year. This reality shouldn't keep us from trying, though. The question on my mind, however, is one of whether or not the Green Party needs to be replaced with some other party, or a new party, capable of challenging the Democratic Party in the election cycles ahead.
The main problem that I see with the Green Party is that its membership appears to be what's left over after the debacle of 2004, in which the convention, in Milwaukee in June of that year, was engineered to produce David Cobb as the party's Presidential nominee for that year.
The people who stayed with the Green Party after that loss were likely to be those who imagined the Green Party as their own private terrain -- gatekeepers, then, whose interest in politics was in keeping the impure out rather than in gaining votes or members. These are people who have always been with the Green Party and who aren't necessarily "bad people," but who would prevent the Green Party from being a contending party, a party which would compete with the Democratic Party for the votes of the liberals whom it has abandoned.
As far as I can tell, the gatekeepers have always been with the Green Party. Back in 1996 I was part of a fledgling attempt to form a Green Party of Ohio. Soon after the effort was organized we discovered that our contact in Cincinnati was basically turning people away. At some point, the people in Cleveland made some phone calls and got a new contact.
In 2002 I was part of an attempt to form a new, anticapitalist movement within the Green Party, which we called the "Green Alliance USA." We held a meeting in January of that year in New Orleans, with the main proceedings conducted by Howie Hawkins and Walt Sheasby. After Walt passed away a couple of years later, the Green Alliance held a number of conference calls with the aim of keeping the organization going. At the last of these conference calls some of the remaining members complained that they weren't getting anywhere because -- you guessed it -- gatekeepers were holding the Green Party back.
At first, when Sanders endorsed Clinton, I thought that maybe the Sanders people would take a look at the Green Party and join its locals. Now, as Sanders campaigns with Clinton, I'm beginning to wonder if the Sanders people just looked at the Stein press releases and gave up on politics altogether.
Oh and did you notice something curious about the Green Party of California's web page? There's a page for the county organizations, but where is the page for the locals? It's almost as if they didn't want the outsiders to know -- or maybe it's that so many locals have folded that nobody is there to clean up the failed links.
So do we need a new political party? I suppose we ought to wait until the November elections are over to find out if there's anything left of the Green Party to support. What do you think?
Comments
exactly
and why haven't they any infrastructure or organizational plans ready to absorb new member including funding mechanisms?. JtC saw the wave coming and adapted WTF is wrong with this rinky dinky party that they cannot be bothered to look ahead. Bejeezuz if they are a leftie political party how could they not see what was going down and prepare for it organizationally. this makes me think they have no interest in building a viable alternative to the obvious duopoly.
yup.
I planned on writing in Bernie since last Aug. And I'm flirting with voting for Jill. But Holy Crap Batman, you are so right, the leadership of the Greens like things the way they are and zero interest in growing.
And thats a Effin shame that they are wasting everyones time who thinks the Greens can grow. The Greens won't grow without replacing the national leadership and many key state leaders.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
The Green Party is hopeless.
In a year of great discontent, and two much disliked candidates from the major parties and the Green Party polling at 5%. I say take the Green Party platform lose the anti capitalist crap and peace crap( reframe it as capitalist resilience and survival in the gritty coming years of the 21st century and rename the party the Cockroach party you would get more votes. At least you'd have long term survival going for you. The world now and especially in the near future is going to be rugged. We need some hard ass, practical progressives who can arm up both psychologically and for real. Farmers in Syria and protesters in Egypt found out who actually runs the world. Why do you thing the US has 700 military bases around the world? Union people knew this 80 years ago.
It's not the platform.
Platforms are meaningless. I'm trying to suggest, here, that there are structural problems with the Green Party, and that I'm not sure that the Sandernistas want to engage those structural problems.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
We Berniecrats know how to run a campaign.
Yeah the leadership is fooked up.
The problem, may be the bad blood, Greens have looked down on the Dems for so many years, and the recent Bernie betrayed us, Bernie Sold Out crap is petulant 14 year old school girl bullshit. The problem maybe that nationally the Greens have earned a reputation as elitist single issue prigs. The effort to rebrand the Greens is no easy task, and they would need to rebranded in a way that is acceptable to the middle as well as the left.
There is a large vacuum in this country, both major parties are to the right, so voters in the center and on the left are unrepresented.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Um, no.
The Green Party hasn't earned any reputation at all, and now we have all of these people who are going to hate on the Greens or cast a Green vote as a protest without bothering to check them out or figure out (from the INSIDE) what's wrong with them.
Being super-small doesn't help the Green Party in this regard, either.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
Such reputation as the Green party has earned
derives in large part from the behavior of some of its members in on-line discussions (there are of course other members there whose behavior is unexceptional, but naturally they're not the most noticeable ones).
You mean like me?
I'm definitely registered Green.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
I was Green from Dec 2000 to Dec 2006.
I never had any real problems with online interactions during that time.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I find the Green
party members online I encounter to be quite humanistic, civil and rational. It's the die hard Democratic loyalists along with the ignorant? uninformed Dems or indies who are all about fear and loathing of the Republicans. They get all riled up about irresponsible, selfish ideologists from the left who refuse to vote for Hillary. Many were Bernie supporters who have returned to the Dem. fold. Lot's of these people are my relatives and friends who bought Obama's pocket full of empty hope and still think it was the racist evil RW obstructionist's that stopped his administration from doing anything good. Hard to admit you've been bamboozled or played. I can't think why they believe that the Clinton's are a lesser evil. FDR had a good point about fear.
"peace crap"
Would you like to elaborate on that?
You are familiar with the term 'blowback', are you not? But, maybe, blowback that affects some countries, like the USA, and not other countries, like certain American client states, is OK with you? (Quick quiz: Which ME country has ISIS NOT attacked?) And, could you please explain what you have against "farmers in Syria"? Why do they need to be reminded "who rules the world"?
Would your objection to Syrian farmers be that they are sitting on historic grains and pulses which have been patiently cultivated by Mideast farmers for millennia and now, in the holy name of Progress, biotech companies would like to own and patent those varieties?
For my part, I think the correct role of the American military is to defend American soil. Our client states should be able to look after themselves. I grant, there is sometimes the need to respond in cases of extreme disaster, cooperate with other countries against piracy and so on, but those kinds of operations ought not to need a huge system of bases overseas.
Mary Bennett
Could be interpreted as *siding with* the farmers in Syria
against those who currently rule the world.
Assuming that interpretation is correct, the complaint in Song of the lark’s comment would be more like, hey, the Greens are not teaching people who the enemy is, nor are they tough enough in reasoning how that enemy should best be dealt with. Unlike union people 80 years ago, they seem in no way prepared mentally or materially to deal with the fact that the system they oppose is the world’s Number One purveyor and perpetrator of violence bar none.
Sure, That interpretation might be
what was intended.
But, "peace crap"? I would still like to see some explanation of why a peace policy is "crap". I, and I would venture to think many others as well, do not think that 2016 is 1939. Nor do I, and I believe, many others, think that Mr. Putin is a danger to the world or to the USA
The Enemy is the banking/finance cabal, and its' sycophants and enablers, two of whom are running for pres. at this moment. I thought Mr. Baraka articulated that point rather well. But, you won't see or hear Mr. Baraka on the lamestream media.
Mary Bennett
The Very Serious People made fun of Dennis Kucinich
when he suggested the U.S. should spend less on “defense” and have a Department of Peace.
Just think of what a Department of Peace could do with the Department of Defense’s missing $6.5 trillion dollars. The Department of Peace could even track it properly and not have to fudge the accounting, either.
Why not build on what is ?
I see no sense in initiating yet another political party. The Greens have done a lot of groundwork. They will be on the ballot in 40+ states. They are not perfect but I find a great deal to admire about them. If we would like some changes let's get involved and help bring those changes. Let's not go back to square one.
EJF
No they haven't done a lot of ground work
getting on the ballot is just collecting signatures. And they can't even do that o a consistent basis year in and year out.
Ground work is more like Deans 50 state plan as someone noted down thread. Hiring campaign directors that can emulate a campaign from this decade, not from the 90's. Social Media strategy that actually builds the email list while propagating FB shares and donation links.
Remember how the Sanders campaign built their email list, that was done by Revolution Messaging, a cutting edge operation. The same things can be done with Python and google apps for essentially free. You don't need to pay for elite tier platforms, in fact Coders for Bernie played a massive roll behind the scenes, writing software and apps.
And wheres the message discipline? OMG.
And thats why we need to take over the Green Party. Or the Democrats, or just start over.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
For once, we're in basic agreement. :-)
Except that I think the ground work needs to be much more extensive, if we want to get different results. But certainly your list of things to do is a good start.
I don't think "message discipline" is much of a problem; like I said to Cass, I doubt if more than 10% of the American electorate even knows what the Green Party is. They don't hear the message.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
We need a Coders For a Future, group
Using Coders for Bernie as inspiration.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Hopefully people will get involved.
How is your local doing?
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
Lack of Local Candidates Is Problematic
I've been looking into local Green Party organizations today, but one thing I'm aghast at is the lack of local candidates available for the Green Party.
For example, looking at California, which is a huge, huge state--there is exactly one Green candidate running for mayor in the state this year. How many towns and cities are there in California? How many will have mayors up for election or re-election this fall? A lot, I'm sure.
But one? How is a political party supposed to grow, make an impression on people, and get funding if you have no candidates! The California Green Party site says there at "at least 21 Greens running in local elections this fall". One for mayor, one for county board, 12 for city councils, 1 for community college trustee, 3 for school boards, 1 for water district positions, 1 for a Fire district position, and 1 for a Community Service district position.
Oh my g*d! Keep in mind these people haven't even won, most probably won't, but the Greens are running 21 candidates for all local and county governmental positions in California, where there are probably *thousands* of positions up for election! Unreal.
I love what the Greens stand for, and maybe there is an entrenched estabilishment in the Green Party. But, damn, project number one is to get Green candidates running in every county and every city if possible. Get the message out! Play it like the Dean 50-state strategy, except make it an "every county strategy" in every state where Greens are on the ballot. If not this year, then during mid-terms in 2018.
I think there's a Green running for school board in Oakland
But guess what. No visible campaign that I've seen. No organization, no nothing. As far as I know, no Greens running for anything in Berkeley, despite City Council seats being open and we (finally) get to pick a new mayor after putting up with corporate real estate stooge Tom Bates since approximately the age of the dinosaurs.
Look, the Greens are not conducting themselves in a serious manner at any level. I've voted for them in the past, and probably will again in the future, but only because aside from Peace & Freedom (who have been out to lunch for decades) there isn't anybody else on the ballot.
Being a small party is problematic.
This is the problem the Sandernistas might hope to solve at some point or other.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
California should consider itself lucky
There is no Green presence whatsoever here in NH. None. Zilch. Zero. Not only no candidates (save at the presidential level, but the coordinator for gathering signatures for ballot presence had a Maine phone number) and no physical presence (like offices or even just a contact person), but no on-line presence either (not even a Web site on some server God only knows where that PURPORTS to represent the party in NH - and there hasn't been any for quite a few years, though at one time there may have been - but wait: there's a Facebook page, whoop dee do, and a twitter account whose last entry seems to be over 3 years old).
I watched the Gree convention
and I follow Jill Stein on fb. My granddaughter a millennial bypassed Bernie and went Green. She was so disillusioned with Obama that she was not going to even register to vote when she was old enough to register. It's rigged she said.
She's right. I voted for Stein in 2012 and Demexited in 2010. After watching the Green convention I was really bummed. As Assange said during their live feed hook up with him that was totally messed up technically. 'Did you not test this?' Fer God sake can't they get some decent techies for their lame live streams or you tubes?
I did not like David Cobb who seemed to run the show. I thought how are these delegates chosen and why are they so focused on PC emotional issues while ignoring the political reality we are all facing.. While important this is not what a real contender to the duopoly, a third party challenge looks like. Occupy was more cohesive then this.
I just don't think they want to be a real 3rd party. They seem to have no organizational plan on a national level no fund raising apparatus and are not willing to take the leap to realistically representing ordinary people's interests. Ask me they like being a fringe party. All that said it's all we have. Isn't there someway to infuse the Greens with enough lefties to structurally change them? I like what they advocate and agree with all their positions but they seem unwilling to get real.
Excellent analysis.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Jesus Christ! You people are such downers!
I spend about 20 hours a week trying to reach millenials, with some success, and have had some success even if I haven't set the world on fire. I have contacted the staff of about 200 different college student newspapers to persuade them to publish articles about the Green Party and the student debt forgiveness plan. Positive results are beginning to appear. I've covered all of Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. I'm about half way through California. I'll continue doing this until Labor Day, and then I'll switch over to trying to reach older-than-millenial people.
And then I come to this site and see nothing but doom and gloom from people who don't seem to be doing anything about the struggle but criticize it. Sometimes I need encouragement or advice but can I get it here? Hell, no. Have you gathered signatures? Hell no. Have you signed the petitions that actually got Stein/Baraka on CNN? Hell no. Are you writing letters to editors? Hell no. Et cetera.
I'm sorry if the Left has let you down. You as a group have certainly let me down.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
That's great!
How is your Green local doing?
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
You're a party animal, aren't you? That's a compliment btw.
My county doesn't have a Green chapter but there's one in the next county over. They were active in seeking signatures [successfully]. They are friendly and helpful. There's something of a transportation problem for me, but I've enjoyed what time I could spend with them. Could I try harder to spend more time with them? Probably. Mea culpa.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
The armchair readers around here --
need to be encouraged to seek out their locals, and to join them. Before the Green Party can be rejected, it must be enjoined.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
It sounds like you're doing great work.
I wouldn't assume that nobody on this site is doing anything, just because they come on here and post negative or depressing comments.
Blogs have a tendency to be more about talk than about action, unless it is action that can happen online (like a petition signature--btw how do you know people didn't sign that petition?)
But there's another problem with taking action, right now: clearly we have a serious strategy problem, and diaries like this are trying to deal with it, albeit in a very specific manner.
Various attempts have been made to redirect this country off of its current political path, which it has essentially been on since the late 70s, and so far all have been in vain. Since 1994, we have had one (arguably) real victory and one symbolic one; the cultural change in the status of LGBT folks is a real victory and has expressed itself at the political and legal level in some good decisions; the election of Barack Obama, the first African-American president, was a symbolic victory that in terms of actual politics was a defeat, so I'm not sure how to calculate that.
At best, our record during my lifetime (1968-present) is bad, our record from 1980-present is worse, and our record since 1994 is abysmal.
And yet we don't change our strategy; we redouble our efforts to do the same thing. Or maybe we try to perform the same strategy BETTER without questioning whether the strategy itself is sound. That is not working out too well for us.
That should not be a reason for defeatism; it should be a reason to come together, preferably in meetups across the country, and ask the deep strategy questions we need to ask, honestly.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
any party (like anything else) is what its members are
like the Democratic Party, for example.
We know what it used to be, when the people in it believed in certain things. Then it got overrun by Republicans. It retains the name "Democratic" but it is, by its membership, a part of the status quo, pull yourself up you lazy bum!, I want what's mine ideology.
Similarly, this site was a bit different in February and has become what it is because of the influx of new members. This is not a judgement whether it's good or bad. That's irrelevant, just like it is with the Democrats. What I'm saying is the nature of a group will change depending on who is in it. You take Eddie Van Halen and plop him down in ABBA and you're gonna get a singing group with a lot of screaming guitar.
Well (and here's my point) it doesn't matter what the Greens are now. The basic concept is good. If the leadership leaves something to be desired, if there's not enough focus....if...I don't even know if that's true, but let's say it is. If it needs to be changed at all then an influx of people will make it change, just by the nature of the new combined membership.
So any problems we might have with the Greens don't matter. We agree with Jill's platform, right? It's not just hers, it's the party's too. So it's not like if we joined we'd pervert the raison d'etre of the Greens. In fact we'd be bolstering it, making it stronger.
You're right.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
I don’t know what it would entail
to get a referendum on the ballot in America (maybe someone here knows), for election reform? Specifically, what form of government representation the public would want. There are alternatives to the the two party (first past the post) system, and this seems like an opportune time to consider it.
Since election systems are state by state ...
... it would be a state by state process. Some have procedures for placing issues along these lines directly on the ballot, others don't, and of course once you've seen one set of detailed rules, that's one down, 49 to go.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
I’m sure it’s laborious and expensive to initiate a referendum
in the states where it is possible, and would require a lot of public education about the different systems of government. I looked briefly at the procedures for Washington state and Connecticut. It appears that CT is addressing the right to have direct voter initiatives, but only half the states offer the possibility. But, at least in CT there's an effort.
We need a People's Party for the 99% of us.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
Wouldn't it be easier to just take over the party?
I will be changing my registration to Green right after the Democratic senatorial primary here in Florida. Then I'll see what's needed to grow the party with like-minded people - regardless of what the locals (if there are any) want to do.
Maybe it would.
The only way we'll find out is to try to take over the Green Party and then to see what happens.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
Social media needs to replace a lot of the functionality
of political parties. We're only at the tip of the iceberg as far as the capabilities of social media to facilitate political organizing goes. Political parties need to be made less relevant.
Beware the bullshit factories.
running the numbers
Real Clear Politics compendium of polls this morning is showing Johnson as high as 11% in the NBC poll and Stein at 4-5% in several polls. Clinton is at, as I recall 47.something% in two way polling and 41.something% four way. I have been watching this over the last few weeks. Johnson/Weld has gradually risen from around 8% tops to 11% in just one poll. Stein seems to be gaining faster, from around 2-3% to 4-5% today.
It begins to look like Johnson could be in the Sept. 26 debates; it should be entertaining to see to what lengths the Clintonistas are willing to go to keep him out. Should present trends continue, I think it likely that the Greens will reach their 5% goal, and thus legally be able to start running candidates in local elections across the country.
Johnson's natural base is the western states, and, I would think, his best shot at influencing this election is to concentrate his efforts in western states. If he were to make a strong statement against Monsanto and GMOs, I think he might have a shot at carrying WA and OR. I doubt either of the two major contenders could even find most western cities on map.
BTW, Johnson and Weld have the best and coolest, and likely cheapest, campaign adds. Check them out on you tube.
Mary Bennett
The problem, of course --
is that the Green Party tends to lose voters on the eve of the election because some of its prospective voters switch to a "lesser evil" stance just as it becomes time to make a decision. This is what happened in 2000, when Ralph Nader's numbers dropped significantly on the day before the election.
“One of the things I love about the American people is that we can hold many thoughts at once” - Kamala Harris
I take your point,
but also note that neither Mr. Gore nor Mr.. Bush were anything like so universally loathed as our present contenders.
Mary Bennett
I'd love a "Labor" Party
But I joined the Greens simply because it seems to be the only liberal party out there people have actually heard of. And although "green" (environmental) issues are important to me, I think the party name sounds as if it may be exclusively the home of environmentalists.
Twain Disciple
It took some time and effort,
but the Green party in New Zealand went through a couple iterations and now has 14 seats in parliament, receiving 11% of the votes in the last election (2014). I think it was 1995 that the public voted on the referendum to change the system from FPP to MMP (mixed member representation).
A coalition of poor/working class whites, blacks, and Hispanics
A coalition of poor/working class whites, blacks, and Hispanics needs to be formed. Right now, based on my limited observations, the Green Party has no interest in expanding beyond a narrow band of leftists. That is not going to be a effective means of change. As others have mentioned in this thread, Bernie revealed a way to appeal to broad segments of the American public. Issues such as jobs, expensive education/child care, corrupt governance, Wal-Mart, Big Ag, Wall Street, out of control health costs, endless wars will unite quite a few people of different stripes. The current Green leadership is either ignorant, incompetent, or exclusive and does not appear to be interested in such a coalition. Of course, combined with the hypothetical creation of such a coalition will need to include not just on-line networking, but also an accurately informed public. Not easy to do. As if getting disparate groups (whites, blacks, Hispanics) uniting wasn't difficult enough. My one and a half cents.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Waiting until November (more likely January) seems wise.
Why January? By election day in November, we mortals are already in the Thanksgiving-Hanukkah-Christmas-New Year mode. Why not now? No matter what happens, I'd love to see the Greens do very well in this election, which seems at least psychologically inconsistent with a lot of criticism of the Greens at this juncture. Also, before we start talking about another new party, we may want to take a closer look at several parties that formed after the Greens and see if any of them are possibilities and also figure out ways how to unite with union members, Democratic loyalists, indies and Republicans around individual issues.
Bearing in mind that the last new party that elected a President was the Republican Party, which formed around 1854 and elected Lincoln in under a decade, I am more a fan of trying to come with ways to unite the left than I am of forming new parties. Although I am relatively certain that this would pain Sanders, I think his run, followed by his apparent determination to support the Democratic Party, has made uniting the left more difficult than ever--and uniting the left has always been worse than portrayed in that Will Rogers joke. Different strains of US Communists and socialists even have had trouble uniting, let alone the entire relatively small group of leftists who are not still Democrats.
What's in a name?
One might say that the color green is passe. I don't know ...I like it....one of my favorite colors.
The question is does the name matter? do we need a new name for a party that is for people, and planet and peace?
Or do we just need a new catchy jingle?
When wealth rules, democracy dies.
I don't know another left party will fair better, but ...
I've liked the Green Party, very much, since the mid nineties. I love the 10 key values. I like that there is a bottom up approach focusing on local solutions rather than top-down forcing non-solutions onto the masses which too many "liberal"-sided groups have.
I think our country has been so brainwashed with variations on "yer either wit' us er again' us", from the cold war and McCarthyism to terrorism and two-party partisan BS, that it will be tough to break people from thinking they are actually "voting against the other", or to demand a better way of running elections (from ranked choice voting to proportional rep and many other innovations that really do make things better).
I think we are at the point where the lesser evil bs has really clearly shown us that it gets us the greater evil while breaking our will to oppose it. I think Jill can do well in terms of votes-- will they be counted is another question entirely. I do think Hillary stole the primaries. I don't think we will have fair elections again without a fight.
I don't know if the kids today are as into the Greens as I was when I first heard them in the 90s. I think they seem to like the various types of socialism, but many are just not into parties. I think we'll have to do a lot more old fashioned out-side the 2 parties activism to change things, and I hope the kids today get behind some principled political parties, Green, Socialist, or other. They'll still have this lesser evil/vote against the other thing to overcome.
For me, it all comes down to the 10 key values. I like them a lot. The selection of David Cobb a few years ago was messed up. I think more people involved could prevent those kinds of things from ever happening again. If Joshua Harris http://www.harrisforbaltimore.com/ wins in Baltimore, it could be a real game-changer. I think his campaign is equally if not more important than Jill's.
That said, we don't make enough of Green accomplishments. Green Party Mayor of Richmond CA saving homes from foreclosure using imminent domain. First same-sex marriages performed in the US by a Green Party mayor in NY State. In the 90s I heard about Greens in NM with just a couple of council members stopping or altering a property tax increase the "both" parties wanted that would've forced subsistence farmers off their land. It might not be much, but it's better than voting for AUMF, The Patriot Act, and selling Fracking & TPP around the world.
Pages