So what about a new political party (again)?
You may have caught the recent point counter point over at The Nation magazine, as regards whether its readers should or shouldn't vote Green. Joshua Holland's entry, "Your Vote for Jill Stein is a Wasted Vote," talks about the Green Party for several paragraphs before concluding with a rather contestable assumption:
The Green Party provides a forum to demonstrate ideological purity and contempt for “the system.” But the Democratic Party is a center of real power in this country. For all its flaws, and for all the work still to be done, it offers a viable means of advancing progressive goals.
Of course, not only does this assertion need to be demonstrated rather than merely being assumed, the weight of evidence runs strongly against it, in the form of twenty or so rigged primaries, of the superdelegates, of the conspiracy with the DNC, and so on.. Maybe in the year 2100 or thenabouts the Democrats will run a liberal again. In the meantime we have the likes of Joshua Holland telling us "go back to bed America," only unlike Bill Hicks he's not even trying to be funny.
And then, of course, there is Kshama Sawant, arguing "Don't Waste Your Vote on the Corporate Agenda -- vote for Jill Stein and the Greens," arguing that a vote for Jill Stein isn't wasted:
But it’s still possible to make a stand this year for single-payer health care, free college, a $15-an-hour minimum wage, a rapid transition from fossil fuels, and an end to endless war. That’s why I’m supporting Jill Stein. We need the strongest possible vote for her in order to continue building the power of social movements and to fight back against the right in the form of Trump and Libertarian Gary Johnson, both of whom dishonestly portray themselves as “antiestablishment” candidates.
The thing is, however, that both Joshua Holland and Kshama Sawant appear to agree that the Green Party sucks. Holland:
I agree with much of the Greens’ platform, but when I went to Green Party meetings, I found a wildly disorganized, mostly white group that was riven with infighting, strategically inept, and organized around a factually flawed analysis of American politics. There are effective Green parties in Europe, but ours is a hot mess. And while the Greens’ bold ideas are attractive, what’s the point of wasting one’s time and energy on such a dysfunctional enterprise?
Of course, Holland erects a double standard in his piece. The Greens, according to him, are a hot mess, but the Democrats in fact became a hot mess when some of them tried to do what he wanted them to do. But let's check out Kshama Sawant here:
We need to build a new political party, one completely free from corporate cash and influence. In fact, Socialist Alternative and I urged Sanders to run as an independent after the primaries, which would have inspired millions of people and helped lay the basis for such a party.
Let that sink in: we need to build a new political party. Even if that political party were the Green Party, we'd still have to build it anew. The Green Party in its current form is broadly inadequate to anything more than the most minimal forms of political power, and I'm not seeing any sort of great uprising against its ridiculousness at present. Would anyone like to point me to the broad exposes of the nonsense that goes on at Green plenaries, or of a Green Party that was founded upon the idea of bottom-up power starting with the locals but which is no longer interested in its locals?
(RealClearPolitics currently, btw, places Jill Stein at 3%, solidly below the 5% she needs in order to get some FEC funding. Don't be surprised, moreover, if half of the nice liberals who currently plan to vote for Stein desert her on the day before the election, as they did with Ralph Nader in 2000.)
Sure, let's give it until November. Nobody's doing anything for the next month and a half, anyway, besides gossip about the least interesting Presidential election run-up in memory, and I'm counting 1984, 1988, 1996, 2004, and 2012 here. But, after that, we'll have to decide: do we want the Green Party? The last time I wrote a diary like this one, I had to ask a bunch of respondents this question: "have you checked out your Green local recently?" Judging from the contents here at c99%, though, I don't seem to have encouraged a lot of actual interest in the question. If people aren't really interested in the Green Party, I can understand that. But here's my residual question: if you aren't interested in the Green Party, what are you interested in?
A new political party is going to require a new platform, a new organization, a ballot access campaign extending everywhere in the United States, and such. Engaging the Green Party means actually going to a Green meeting and understanding what needs to change about the Green Party and how to change it.
Which one is going to be more difficult?
Comments
I think Cass is trying to get us to come up with a Plan
I don't think there is a Plan right now.
There's a strong intent to vote for Stein, a strong minority opinion that nobody should vote for anybody, and a couple of people who think voting Trump to stop Clinton is the way to go. That's how I read opinion on the website, which is not quite a Plan at all, but if it were, it would be a Plan for the election, which is more or less cheesaloed anyway, given the amount of fraud there is; the Plan going forward is a whole different sack of potatoes, and I think that's what Cass is trying to get at.
"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
Yes.
At this point we would benefit from thinking about what to do after the election.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
I have some ideas.
I'd start with the media, but you've probably heard my shtick on that.
"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
Stick with it ;->
And I also liked your comment about 'as long as political party and community strength are seperate it's f'd from the get go'
Pirates
I still say: check the Pirate Party out. They're still at the stage where their stance can be made even more 99% friendly than it already is; and although plagued with the same organizational problems the Greens are, they at least admit those problems are problems,which many Greens do not.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Describing any group as ragtag is a conversation-ender
and I agree. We are all flailing here...
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
We are our own worst enemy.
Today, there were two "loving" swipes at c99 content for lack of gravitas. I only bring this in because it speaks to your point about a lack of participation and effort - whether we are talking about the Green Party or c99. Both are the sum of their parts, and we are the parts.
While I don't like thinking about it, I don't think anything will stop the duopoly but an all-out calamity. We did participate, we did organize, and we did win. Unfortunately, the big kids shoved us down and took our trophy. Besides socking them, I don't know how you fight that no matter how many parties you form. They own the voting booths and count the votes.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
But Do they own the voting booths? and we are able to vote count
I heard that they invented calculators, I have only gone trough 4 really good ones, and I retain the ability to do addition, subtraction and higher functions like fractions. And votes were not supposed to be fractional, although there may be new weighted systems that are.
We ceded so much of our power. It can be grabbed back.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Belive me as someone
who makes a living off math and public opinion surveys everything you see is weighted. You may retain the ability to do higher math including fractions but weighting the numbers trumps any real math or real picture of what's going on. what is this I ask it's not real information or factual but whatever manipulation pf data and numbers the marketeers decide will be considered reality.
Any poll that excludes entire age groups is suspect
even if it's for Depends (a hyped brand, store-brand was superior according to um, someone close to me). I can read basic spreadsheet, too. Someone with your background is necessary to move forward, shaharazade (lotsa a's there!)
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Any poll that excludes entire age groups is suspect
even if it's for Depends (a hyped brand, store-brand was superior according to um, someone close to me). I can read basic spreadsheet, too. Someone with your background is necessary to move forward, shaharazade (lotsa a's there!)
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
"None of the Above"
If that were to appear on all ballots below the D & R candidates, "None of the Above" would win in a landslide. Just think of all the empty seats in Congress that would have to wait til the next election to be filled by someone, from either party, that actually appealed to the electorate.
The hell with all that work building a "new" party that would just become the next establishment party, just send an empty chair (like Clint's) as your representative until both D's and R's come to heel.
It wouldn't be any worse than what we already have. Have a nice day.
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
The problem is...
Getting "None Of The Above" on the ballot...
I've had the same fantasy for years that there was a none of the above, and if none of the above won the candidates that it beat, would be prohibited from running again...
It would take a few years but eventually we'd sort em out...
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,
How...is this going to happen?
The hell with all that work building a "new" party that would just become the next establishment party, just send an empty chair (like Clint's) as your representative until both D's and R's come to heel.
Who or what is going to bring them to heel? The climate?
"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
A second requirement
If "None of the Above" being on the ballot could be achieved, there would have to be a second requirement to go with it. Namely that if "None of the Above" actually won there would have to be another entire election immediately (not just running the same losers again, but with all new candidates since they were all essentially Rejected), and again if necessary, until someone actually did Win. Otherwise we might wind up with an under person-ed Congress or Legislature or City Council, etc., which was being run by a minority of the very people (or type of people) the majority of voters had rejected in the first place, or at the very least some districts would have no representation at all.
Green Party
I'm not very optimistic about the chances of the Green Party broadening its appeal. Jill Stein ended up getting roughly one-third of one percent of the popular vote in 2012, and I seriously doubt she'll do much better this year. Besides their lack of organization, a big problem I see for the Greens is that their agenda seems designed more to appeal to environmental purists than it does to the bread and butter concerns of mainstream America. And unfortunately, the party leadership seems so calcified and out of touch that any attempt to fundamentally reform the party would most likely be an exercise in futility.
In my view, those on the left who see no prospect for advancing their agenda in either the Democratic or Green parties should adopt a two-pronged approach. First, the formation of a brand new party that is solidly focused on shoring up the financial security of the beleaguered middle class. And second, formation of a non-partisan public advocacy group dedicated to electoral and procedural reform. Such as:
Developing a coherent, non-partisan agenda for sweeping process reform could be an effective way of holding politicians' feet to the fire, and creating yet another significant contrast between candidates of the status quo and those representing a new party.
inactive account
Is anyone doing the groundwork for this yet?
It seems pretty reasonable.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Don't know...
but from a practical standpoint, I think it's best right now to defer any action on this kind of an agenda until after the election. Which mercifully, is now less than seven weeks away. Once that's out of the way, I think there's going to be a lot of interest and focus on how to make a stronger showing in the future. I can't help believing that we on the left are still a long way from putting our best foot forward.
inactive account
We on the left spend so much time in self-criticism,
blaming ourselves, blaming each other across intra-Left divisions like race, gender, age, ideology, and strategic differences of opinion, blaming the voters, blaming the public, etc.
We spend comparatively little time assessing the situation practically. I think that's because the situation is so horribly depressing, and we don't really want to look at it closely. That's understandable, but it renders left-wing discussion weirdly abstract and disconnected from who we are, where we live, what we feel, what we need, what we want.
Like, for instance, I rarely see anybody address the fact that most of our movement, or proto-movement, is comprised of exhausted, demoralized people, and that the people in the general population who agree with us but are not activists are also exhausted, demoralized people. One would think that would be one of the first things an organizer would need to address, rather than maintaining the Left's traditional "rub some dirt on it, you ain't hurt that bad" attitude.
I rarely see anybody address the fact that the Left and all the cultural and economic infrastructure it relied on in the 40s-70s has been blitzed more or less constantly since the late 1970s. We mention that the way we mention the weather, as something unfortunate that we can't help. Few people want to talk about the necessity of building alternative structures. Even I don't talk about it as much as I should, b/c it takes a lot more energy to talk about that than to disagree with another caucuser or take apart a Hillbot.
That's why we aren't putting our best foot forward.
"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
Like I alluded somewhere here, too much navel-gazing
and self-criticism and self-doubt to try for leadership. We start out demoralized. Up seems distant and unattainable, a circular conundrum. I guess that's spelled right, no squiggles!
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Well, aren't you doing it?
You do seem to have all the answers here, God knows the rest of us are just lazy and not being serious enough.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Too passive-agressive for today. Lighten up.
We do not need in fighting.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Stay with the Greens
Our policy should be a 4 party system: Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian, and Green Socialists.
This way when one party goes bananas like the GOP, three of them can easily overcome the insane one.
Our policies need to shift, tho. For one, Green Socialism is our primary goal. Fighting against climate change and income inequality needs to be the dual message.
We should focus on getting the Democratic Socialists of America, the Socialist Party of America, and other leftist groups together with the Greens for a merger.
Again, so much angst here. Yes, to merger, who will do it?
That was Bernie's role, his disappearance has created a vacuum. I hoped it could be done leaderless, that looks like a fail. Hell, it may be possible with a symbolic leader like the Great Pumpkin, I don't know.
mimi was right, we are sad, tired and a bit afraid.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
A vote for Hillary is a vote to waste millions of more lives.
The Greens may be in somewhat of a mess, but getting them above the 5% threshold so they can get federal funding would be a good place to start.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Many if not most
transformative social movements have focused themselves around strong, visionary leaders: Mao, Mandela, Marx, Castro, Hitler, Bolivar, Ghandi, Osama bin Laden, Lech Walesa, to name just a few from recent history. Even Bernie Sanders for a while, inspired this kind of focused loyalty. And then he relinquished it.
A singleness of purpose is what is required, to form a cohesive revolutionary movement. This is most effectively achieved by the living example of a single individual - a "hero" in fact, who symbolizes the dreams and aspirations of many, and who is entirely and passionately devoted to them. Such people don't come along every day.
native
I'm voting for Jill and
I'm voting for Jill and registered Green to give the party ballot access at the state level. I truly believe that Jill is the best choice left in this election cycle. I have a fondness for the party, though I think they need some re-branding. Green makes them sound like a one issue party.
As to their seriousness and disorganization, I point you to this very thread and suggest we aren't doing much better. How egotistical are we being that we can do better than the Greens? Do you really think you're not going to face the same challenges that the Green Party struggles with? Finances, egos (there are many in this thread), territorialism, media disdain, Democratic and Republican Party shenanigans?
The Bernie Sanders meetings I went to were largely free wheeling affairs. Low budget. Leaders came and went. Egos and styles clashed. I, sadly, think some of his success was that he was willing to work within a dominate party. That was also part of his downfall.
Instead of giving up on the Green Party, I suggest enlisting them in an effort to build a stronger party which includes other progressive parties. Socialists, other state and national progressive parties. Egos will still be a challenge, but that's going to be an issue regardless. Issues aren't very far apart between the various parties. I think combining, instead or creating yet another progressive competitor is the best way to go.
I also think we need to concurrently work on instant run-off voting or a similar system. Without this, the establishment will always call whatever outside party becomes the home of progressives a spoiler party. I don't think alternative parties are going to be successful until this takes place.
Am I willing to lead this effort? Not currently and I'm pretty sure y'all wouldn't want me to if you knew how poorly I manage my own life.
and you have identified our biggest problematic stumbling block:
humility.
Normal people are generally not politicians because of self-doubt. A fear of looking foolish. It's a big hump to overcome that.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
A networked system of parties
coalition politics frightens people the way consensus method frightens me b/c we've all seen it done badly, but it's obviously the way to go.
As for this:
How egotistical are we being that we can do better than the Greens? Do you really think you're not going to face the same challenges that the Green Party struggles with? Finances, egos (there are many in this thread), territorialism, media disdain, Democratic and Republican Party shenanigans?
Your point is well taken on the one hand--we're not doing better than the Greens right now, for sure. Will we face the same challenges--sure, that's why we need strategic analysis and fresh thinking for ways to meet those challenges or go around them.
But on the other hand, somebody has to do better than the Greens are currently doing. And I've been a Green for some years (became a Dem again to vote for Bernie in the primary), so I'm not a Green-basher by any means.
"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
Does the Green Party even want us?
What is the scoop from the latest state party plenaries?
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
The people are the problem, a party is not the solution!
To create a successful political party we need to not create a political party. Because a party without motivated people is just as useless as the parties are to us currently.
Why have political parties failed us? Too many people don't get involved, or, don't stay involved. Why? People are either too busy just surviving, politics overwhelms them, or people have wrongfully learned that politics doesn't matter. Even if the game is stacked against us, fighting back becomes more important.
What do we need to do? Make politics personal again.
How do we do that? We create an organization with many local chapters who's main goal is to help local communities with the things that are important to them. By doing this we will slowly earn the trust of the people we help and build a community of Americans who truly appreciate their fellow Americans once again.
Some examples of what we can do are:
1) Pay teachers extra to teach classes for parents/ college credit at public schools.
2) create local community owned coops that local people can help invest in and reap the rewards. If people personally saw how much easier their life would be "owning" a business together with their community, they wouldn't live in the current system
3) Create local community health insurance. Use their own bargaining power to help create a better system each local city at a time.
etc
This sounds like the model used
By Hamas and/or Hezbollah in the Palestinian community? The party provides social services, filling the void left by the Israeli government and earning good will among their constituents. At least, this is something I remember reading about them.
So much of what you say is right--
that I hate the fact your comment begins "The people are the problem." The people are not the problem.
Why have political parties failed us? Too many people don't get involved, or, don't stay involved.
The second sentence is totally right--that is a problem. And your assessment of why it's happening is spot-on.
But that's not "why...official political parties [have] failed us." Bernie's movement was stopped by voter purges and election fraud. That's not a failure on the part of the people. In fact, not that I think Gore was such a great choice, but with the exception of Obama, every presidential campaign in this century has been afflicted with voter purges and election fraud.
In other words, the people at the top have written the people/voters out of the system.
Americans love to blame themselves, so of course a million different explanations for why it's actually the people's fault are always kicking around, leading to the idea of "we get the government we deserve"--but we don't.
But the following things you said are amazing and completely spot-on. Please write more!
What do we need to do? Make politics personal again.
How do we do that? We create an organization with many local chapters who's main goal is to help local communities with the things that are important to them. By doing this we will slowly earn the trust of the people we help and build a community of Americans who truly appreciate their fellow Americans once again.
"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
Wow, guys, do people here really believe
that the people are the problem?
If so, you should be looking to start some form of insular community that focuses on resilience and shuts out the rest of the population.
"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
There Will Never Be Change
Unless enough people vote for change. Have you not yet had enough of empty promises and rampant betrayals? Unless and until YOU decide you want another option, it won't ever be delivered to you by those with something to lose if they do.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Just to let you know --
I've been a Green since 1992 and I'm still a Green.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Party = Time + Money
One of the things I've been doing since Bernie got taken out is looking at the Greens in part to see what it's like to run a national party. And just today I ran into an example of just how difficult it is to do this as a volunteer/part time thing.
I have been doing a lot of analysis of the FEC individual contributions data set. This comes out once a month on the 20th and includes reportable contributions through the end of the previous month. This morning I downloaded the data and dumped it into my system. The thing I was most interested in was the change in new Green contributions as I was hoping to get an idea what the Berners were up to. Imagine my surprise when there were NO individual contributions - especially since I knew that I had made one!
After poking around the FEC site for a while, I discovered that the Green filing was there but it was a day late for inclusion in the dump. So I spent a two hours processing it myself and added the results to the official data. The data itself seems fine, and is about 50% larger than the July filing, but I think the size is actually part of the problem.
Managing FEC filings is skilled work. It takes a team of people who know WTF they are doing. My suspicion is that the GP team was simply pushed to the limit by the amount of data. Yet the amount of data is tiny compared to what the duopoly parties have (about 1%).
I tend to agree with the comments here about Ajuma as a VP pick, the lack of organization and the lack of message discipline. But I also think that the amount of infrastructure and money required to run a successful national campaign is not obvious and is too easy to overlook. Ballot access, media access, talent access - all this stuff is needed and costs boatloads of money.
So maybe you start small. Look at the Working Families Party in NY: it's leading light (Zephy Teachout) is now running as a Democrat. Bernie ran as a Democrat because he did research on all this and came to the same conclusion. Once you become viable at the local level, it makes sense to switch to a comfy corner of the duopoly. Anything else is an insane amount of work.
I do think starting a new party is possible, and I think several months flirting with the Greens has given me some idea what is involved, but it is a lot. People who are barely making it and have children or ailing parents - the people most in need of Cass' working class party - often have neither the time nor the money to contribute to such an undertaking.
To make it work, you need a charismatic leader with good message discipline and access to all the infrastructure needed who can take small contributions and channel them effectively. If this is going to happen by 2020, it needs to get started now, and the media piece is the most important part.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
I have voted WFP line in all general elections in NY for years.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Thank you for the sound strategic assessment--
this sort of thinking is exactly what we need, IMO.
I do think starting a new party is possible, and I think several months flirting with the Greens has given me some idea what is involved, but it is a lot. People who are barely making it and have children or ailing parents - the people most in need of Cass' working class party - often have neither the time nor the money to contribute to such an undertaking.
To make it work, you need a charismatic leader with good message discipline and access to all the infrastructure needed who can take small contributions and channel them effectively. If this is going to happen by 2020, it needs to get started now, and the media piece is the most important part.
up
"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
This is a really good post.
Perhaps the basis for a diary?
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
United Progressive Party
https://www.facebook.com/unitedprogressivepartyusa/
The UPP doesn't exist.
I attempted to load their website page at http://www.riseupp.org/ ; this took me to another page at http://www.unitedprogressiveparty.org/ whose content consisted of the "Apache2 Debian Default Page" -- in other words, a web page for a Debian-based server which had not yet been programmed with any content at all.
Please allow me to remind you:
Nothing dependent on Facebook counts. Or matters.
I am not opening my life to Zuckerberg and Company in order to read about a "political party" whose only existence on the Internet is a login-required Facebook page. I'm not the only such, either, by any means. And that's what you have to do to read anything about the UPP. If the UPP were serious about attaining viability, it would prioritize its Facebook-independent website as its first priority, not its Facebook page. It's obviously nothing of the kind.
The UPP obviously doesn't want anything to do with this progressive leftist, or any of the millions like him who have the common sense to avoid Facebook involvement. That's not the path to viability as a political party.
No offense intended to you, Thoughtful Voter (unless you're Mark Zuckerberg, in which case your mileage just might vary).
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Absolutely right--I have no idea why so many lefties
congregate on FB.
"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
Robots'R US
Robots are incorruptible, will work tirelessly for zero dollars, and will only go so far as their programming permits. They will not indulge in pay-to-play shenanigans, lie constantly, or faint due to overheating, allergies, Parkinson's' disease or blood clots. They do not marry, so there's no pesky dynastic ambitions to worry about. What do you think? Techies in Silicon Valley are slavering over AI robotics now, because they can eliminate human workers; their fondest wish in the core of their withered, libertarian hearts. Let's, for once, coopt them with Uber and AirBnB-like stealth in this dreaded sharing economy, and start the first AI Robot Party.
robots?
BZZZZT! But thank you for playing!
Today's Password is: "hacker" !!
..... I'm a hacker, I'm a cracker, I'm a Packer Snacker..... -- thanatokephaloides' version of the Steve Miller Band's "The Joker"
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
dupe, dupe, dupe, dupe of earl, dupe dupe....
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
You dissing me?
Watch out. I don't appreciate your stupid comments. Say something useful besides smarmy zingers. And if robots can be hacked, they can be made unhackable as well.
hackable forever
False. Anything one engineer can do, another can un-do. And that will always be true. The only limits are the willingness and ability of those on the hackers' side to devote the quantity of resources required to un-do what had been done to defeat them.
Every piece of evidence I have seen with respect to this never-ending battle tells me that the hackers are winning, and always will be winning. There are just too many entities out there with the cash and the sovereign spaces who are willing to expend both to get the hacks done. China, Russia, North Korea..... just to name three sovereign nations who are known to have such interests and are willing to exercise them. And I haven't even broached American sovereign hacking yet; but Edward Snowden has. Maybe you ought to read some of what he has to say before being too harsh on me for telling the truth here. (Please don't eat the messenger!)
Also: Read your spam folder lately? I read mine daily.
Perhaps I'm biased here, having had my ISP account hacked, by Korean hackers, in the past year and indepdendently of my local computers. But again, my evidence shows the hackers to be winning -- and by leaps and bounds at that.
I certainly meant no offense to you personally, Writerinres.
UPDATE: 9/22/2016 19:00 (MDT) BBC World News/BBC World Service reports a major security breach in the Yahoo system.
----------------
The hackers are still winning.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Hilarious!
Well, to someone who knows and likes the original song, anyway...
"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
The Greens are non existent in Vermont
As low hanging fruit goes for this party, Vermont is it.
The people campaigning for Jill now did not get started until August. Just prior to that they were introducing themselves to one another on a FB page.
There is a large number of people here that consider themselves crucial to any start up lefty organization. These same people however, never actually do any work beyond attending meetings because they are always attending meetings. I know because I met a bunch of them when I tried to start a Democratic populist organization here some 20 years ago. There were 80 people jammed in to a conference room at Vermont College to hear the keynote I brought in. He was met with enthusiastic applause at the event, but the enthusiasm ended once he left town.
I'll be honest, I don't have the time or energy to be politically active any more. I can support a party like the Greens with a little money and a minor amount of sweat equity. But the Green party has put next to no effort into this campaign. While I agree with almost all of Stein's platform, I just don't see any organizational skills that are worthy of my limited resources and participation.
This is what we get --
for thirty-six years of putting all our eggs in the Democratic Party basket. It's going to be a long road back. That's why I'm bringing up "start a new party" seven weeks before the election.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Pages