Amateur Hour with Jill Stein: Give Snowden Cabinet Position

[struggle4progress]

... I would say not only bring Snowden back, but bring him into my administration as a member of the Cabinet ...

[CrowCityDem]

1. With her in charge, the Greens are as batshit crazy as Trump.

[Mass]

2. Jill Stein is an amateur who does not have the competency to be president. Period.

I am not sure why the green party cannot find somebody more serious to run, somebody who actually has an experience in either government or in policy, but she is a loss of time.

[xocet]

3. Why post that? Are you seriously afraid of the Green Party at this point?

If so, a better approach would be to stop trying (possibly unknowingly) to separate the Democratic Party from its more progressive elements by demeaning the one other campaign that represents progressive ideals (just as Sanders' recent campaign did represent those same ideals) more than it represents a currently possible reality (given the present state of development of political parties in the US).

There is no other reason to even call attention to that story unless one believes the Nader canard and sees Nader everywhere. Neither is the Green Party Ralph Nader nor Ross Perot.

Is it so hard to keep the idea of unity in mind?

Even if you intensely dislike Stein or Snowden, it is time to give that a rest if you want the Democratic Party to win the upcoming general election. You might want to reconsider your estimation of the amount of discord that has been sown by the tactics of the Clinton campaign on this discussion board and possibly in general before posting on such divisive topics.

Regardless, good luck to you - I hope that you see the wisdom of supporting unity because the Democratic Party needs to win the general election.

[struggle4progress]

4. So far as I tell, of the nearly 8000 Congressional and state legislative seats available,

the Greens have not even one

This means that every vote for Stein is a throw-away: no scenario gives her any chance of winning

American third parties, like the Greens and the Libertarians, having no shot at the Presidency, have long adopted a strategy of trying to raid votes from the major parties, in order to crow about the resulting "support"

That is why Stein is not preaching unity but is instead regularly attacking the Democratic nominee

It is a sad day for the Greens when even the Libertarian lunatics sound like they might have a better grasp of some basic governance issues:

... his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, said he would choose Clinton. "I think Mrs. Clinton, no matter what you may think of her various economic policies, is very well qualified to be president of the United States. I would not say the same of Mr. Trump, with all due respect," he said ...

Snowden has no qualifications whatsoever for a cabinet position

And although both the Greens and Libertarians want Snowden pardoned, that is a losing campaign issue, given the numbers of voters who disagree about that

We do not know today how tight November margins will be

But we did learn in 2000 just how far the Republicans are willing to go to grab power; so it might be best to forestall close state fights in 2016

Anyone who votes third-party in November is an idiot

[xocet]

7. Attacking never unifies - note your own reaction to Dr. Stein - and is therefore pointless.

The goal should be to bring people who are leaning towards Greens or Libertarians back towards the Democratic Party if winning the election is desired. A Trump presidency is quite clearly the worst possible outcome of this next election: the Republicans have - as far as I can tell - no policy position that is even remotely progressive. Every aspect of progress will suffer under a President Trump.

The question is whether one can bring others to focus on the primary problem (a Trump victory) - not a secondary issue and not anger or disappointment.

Discussing the idea that Snowden should be made a cabinet-level official is a secondary discussion. Attacking that idea is an unproductive attack, since it accomplishes nothing to bring them to vote against Trump - i.e., the focus shifts to Snowden, not Trump.

Attacking is not productive of unity. Whether Dr. Stein attacks the Democratic candidate or not, it is not necessary to respond in kind. Reasoning with her target audience is a better approach - much better than attacking them personally - i.e., your statement regarding Snowden's qualifications is entirely sufficient by itself (if you for some reason you have to get out into the weeds of a secondary discussion).

I know that we likely disagree on a lot of things, but please believe me that attacking ahead of reasoning is not the right form of tactics to achieve success. I respect your right to disagree, though.

Thank you for your reply.

[oberliner]

34. We regularly attack the Republican candidate on this board

Should the goal be to bring people who are leaning Republican back towards the Democratic party?

I don't think that stops us from going after Trump and company.

[xocet]

42. Ideally, yes, but the likelihood of convincing a Republican to vote for Sec. Clinton is virtually 0.

After all, how much overlap is there between the Democratic platform and the Republican platform?

Essentially zero, right? Do you think that it is likely that one could convince a Republican to vote for a Democrat? Those chances are vanishingly small in my opinion.

On the other hand, if you go to the left of the Democratic platform say with the Green party - there is significant overlap in goals - though not electorally. Trump is equally bad to both groups. Hence, it might be possible to pull voters from that direction to the Democratic platform - a Green candidate is currently very unlikely to win, so with a little persuasion, it might be possible to get those who would vote Green to recognize that they need to vote for Sec. Clinton to prevent a Trump presidency. (This is not to be confused with the claim that that persuasion would be easy.)

The question is simple. Why write off possible voters on the left, if by simply debating the issues with them (or simply not putting them into a defensive mindset) instead of directly attacking them, they might eventually though reluctantly be convinced to vote for Sec. Clinton?

Why make it harder for Sec. Clinton to win the election by attacking the only other group that might actually come around?

That does not make sense tactically. You may have a different opinion.

[oberliner]

44. That's definitely not true

There are Republicans who loathe Trump enough to cross over and vote for Hillary.

[xocet]

46. No, your statement has nothing to do with convincing them.

As your statement implies, those Republicans have convinced themselves through their loathing of Trump. Belittling Trump actively and frequently here on DU will have no effect on them, since they already despise him. Have at Trump!

The other Republicans who do not despise Trump would be virtually unreachable and would share no common ground with the Democratic Party: ridiculing Trump will have no effect on them, so they are of no practical concern.

Green voters do have significant overlap with Democrats and potentially could be persuaded to vote for Sec. Clinton if eventually only out of self-preservation, but hopefully not only for that reason.

So, what I stated is most certainly true, since it considers only those voters that need to be and might be convinced.

I appreciate your reply.

[oberliner]

47. Jill Stein is awful

The best way to convince people not to vote for her would be to illustrate just how awful she is.

[xocet]

48. But how that illustration is done actually counts for something tactically.

We don't totally disagree, I think. It is just in the approach.

[oberliner]

57. The "Give Snowden a Cabinet Position" stuff from the OP is worthy of critique

I think it is a good illustration of why Jill Stein ought not to be taken seriously. Do you disagree?

I certainly believe, as you do, that it is important to ensure that progressives support Hillary for president. With both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren giving their endorsements, I don't see how there could be any doubt that her candidacy is where those with progressive views ought to find a home.

[xocet]

61. Critique is certainly necessary.

From a practical point of view, the Green Party platform (Jill Stein is irrelevant to the argumentation that needs to be made - she is a figurehead, though, and, for the purposes of argument should be ignored: otherwise, any line of argument is introduced will be seen as an ad hominem attack and will be discounted by the target audience.) should be taken seriously as far as it does have overlap with the Democratic Party platform. One should speak to that overlap and omit the open ridicule of the points that do not match as critique and ridicule are fundamentally different things. What is the practical goal? Winning the election is that goal. That itself must be the focus. One should omit ego, hopelessness, and a need to feel superior (that statement is not an accusation): then one should stick purely to the reasoned critique of the positions that one feels are not worthwhile. Only in that way can one hope to bring others who might be further to the left back in. Some will not return - some will. If one writes them off collectively from the beginning, they certainly will not. Their votes matter. It is to the long-term benefit of all to bring passionate people back. Unity and passion are necessary for the hard work of GOTV which is always critical to winning.

At least, this is my belief.

What is your take on this? Is there a different approach that you believe would be more likely to be productive?

[oberliner]

63. Thanks for sharing your perspective

I think that the Democratic party platform is the most liberal and progressive that it has ever been. Bernie Sanders is a big part of how that came to be. It is time for everyone who supports those values to support the Democratic Party. The very tiny number of people who are going to vote for Jill Stein I think are less likely to be convinced to change their mind than those reluctant Republicans I mentioned earlier. With that in mind, I think the focus ought to be in spreading the positive message of the Democratic Party, and pointing out the folly (and dangers) of voting for anyone else. That is part of the raison d'être of a board like this.

[stopbush]

38. According to DU rules, any non-D candidate is our foe,

and our job is to defeat them and elect Ds.

Posting well-deserved ridicule at a candidate like Jill Stein may serve to wake up a few voters who are thinking of voting for her as a protest vote.

[roamer65]

8. Are you going criticize Republicans who vote for Gary Johnson instead?

Your overgeneralization of "Anyone who votes third party is an idiot" is a hoot.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. It's a discussion board. We discuss things.

If Jill stein stopped saying dumb things we wouldn't have much to say about her.

[xocet]

10. The question is of tactics and allies. Do you feel that you have enough allies or would you welcome

more support to the cause? The further question is how to achieve that. Do you think that you can better win support by attacking or by reasoning?

Anyway, have a nice day.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. The two are, of course, not mutually exclusive.

The Green party are not allies. They're basically well-meaning, but their actions help the Republicans and hurt the Democrats and America.

I think that pointing how bad a candidate Stein is a reasonable tactic to encourage people to vote for Democrats, and is an example of both "reasoning" and "attacking".

[Chathamization]

18. I'm not sure how much they help Republicans at this point. I doubt there are many Stein voters who

would vote for Clinton if Stein wasn't running. The "the two parties are the same" and "you can't make any difference inside the parties" mindset is a pretty big problem, but though the Greens try to capitalize on it it doesn't originate from them. The Greens seem mostly irrelevant. Probably the biggest annoyance is when they try to jump into conversations about progressive movements online and disrupt things.

[xocet]

45. I admit that the two are not mutually exclusive. However, the two do not commute.

If one were initially to make the argument that, since Snowden has no high-level executive experience, he would make an unqualified choice for a cabinet-level position, that might naturally lead to a potential Green voter questioning Dr. Stein's approach to potential appointments. Further, one might - as a result of her faulty potential appointment being recognized - be lead to question her ability to make decisions that would benefit the US. That, at least, might have a chance of being persuasive.

If, on the other hand, the attempted persuasion starts with something akin to a statement that is a strong form of "that person and those who would vote for her are crazy/idiotic/neophytic", convincing a potential Green voter to come over to the Democratic Party will be made that much harder. It literally will be as the old idiom states adding insult to injury. No salesman pitches a sale with "Hey, moron, come buy my product!"

Aside: We might disagree on the definition of "attacking". Arguing against a person's position objectively and impersonally is perfectly reasonable tactically in my opinion - this is reasoning. Attacking (to me) implies that the argument manifests personal insults as well as whatever other content may be present - that is attacking and (as you noted) reasoning. This is why I consider what was written up-thread to be bad tactics. Addressing the Green voter could possibly be done by a post entitled something like "Five Reasons for Green Party Voters to Consider Supporting Sec. Clinton".

Maybe we will ultimately disagree, but, at any rate, thank you for your response.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. I think people who believe in someone who would appoint Snowden

To a cabinet level post, will not vote for the democrat. Hence, not my ally but a bunch of crazies.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. I don't think that's necessarily true.

I think that people who themselves believe that Snowden should be appointed to a cabinet level post will not vote for a Democrat, and are a bunch of crazies.

But that's a slightly weaker claim.

I think it is quite possible that there are people who will think that this particular position is crazy, but support Stein for other reasons, who might vote Democratic.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. Then they particularly should be made aware of her insane stances

Like this one.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Yes, I agree. N.T.

[xocet]

43. With that sort of a starting position, you are correct that they will not be convinced to ally with

the Democratic Party.

That is why your position is not a tactically sound position. I respect your right to believe differently, but I do not agree with your analysis.

[rbrnmw]

9. Jill Stein is fair game she is as dangerous as Trump

because voting for her is a vote for Trump. The hell with the Green Party people who have hurt fee fees, they are as big of a problem as republicans at this point. This is Democratic Underground in GE mode.

[xocet]

12. Well...

it is clear that you will not be open to trying to convince anyone to return to the fold:

"The hell with the Green Party people who have hurt fee fees, they are as big of a problem as republicans at this point."

Tactically, this might not be the best idea, but thanks for your reply.

[Squinch]

30. Those looking to Stein were never in the fold in the first place, and they were never going to

return.

Did you have a problem with all the hilarity around the Trump Pence logo? Did you tell people that they were keeping people from returning to the fold when they posted those threads making fun of it?

If not, your argument is inconsistent.

[xocet]

49. Your final analysis is faulty for reasons that I have already presented in this thread.

Your claim is essentially that there is no common ground ideologically between the Green Party and the Democratic Party. Further, your claim is that it is fine to write off people who might be convinced to vote for the Democratic Party.

Tactically, the positions you implicitly espouse are unproductive though I respect your right to disagree.

[Squinch]

52. Tactically, your coddling of an opposition candidate while fawning over voters who you will

never win is unproductive.

Your analysis is the one at fault.

Those people will never be convinced to vote for Hillary.

[xocet]

58. Good luck then to you! n/t

[LongtimeAZDem]

56. False premise; this has nothing to do with ideology. Those that actually care about policy

will vote for Clinton, if only to stop Trump.

Those who switching from voting Democrat (if they ever actually were) to Green are proceeding from petulance, and will not be swayed by reason. There is absolutely no reason to entertain their delusion.

[LongtimeAZDem]

31. That argument has become tiresome; those nuts are long past "returning to the fold" (nt)

[xocet]

50. Simply because one is tired of hearing an argument does not render the argument fallacious. n/t

[Squinch]

54. Simply because one keeps repeating a fallacious argument doesn't render the argument true.

[LongtimeAZDem]

55. Of course not, but this one is tiresome because it is nonsense, and has been for quite a while (nt)

[demmiblue]

15. Clearly, she isn't even infinitesimally as dangerous as Trump.

Some need to get over their primary fee fees and target the true threat... Trump.

[rbrnmw]

23. Thanks for your reply

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125911354

[sweetloukillbot]

27. Why is criticizing the policies of an opponent to our candidate wrong? nt

[LongtimeAZDem]

29. Afraid? Not at all. Amused? Absolutely. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

33. The Green Party are our competitors, not our allies.

It is appropriate to criticize them.

[Person 2713]

39. Are the greens talking of unifying with the dem party . Have they seen "the wisdom of

supporting unity because the Democratic Party needs to win the general election"?
I had not heard that!

[Person 2713]

41. Here someone already asked the admin

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125911354

[demmiblue]

5. These Green Party postings are getting more bizarre by the day. n/t

[Blue_Adept]

11. They're certainly proving eye-opening for some that didn't realize what Stein is like

So, useful and educational.

[demmiblue]

14. No, the Green Party postings here are more like bored and pathetic. Y'all need to get a grip.

These imaginary wars are more suited for school children. Some people need to spend less time on the internet, and more time in the real world.

There are bigger fish to fry.

[Blue_Adept]

24. Considering the way some viewed the Green Party as the true home of Democrats...

... for the past few months, talking about what they're actually presenting and offering in the midst of an election season is useful for many.

But seriously, don't like, don't read it. Easy to trash, ignore, keyword, etc.

Stop being the topic police.

[greatauntoftriplets]

36. You can say that again!

[grossproffit]

37. Well said.

[Rex]

17. .

[bdwker]

22. Meh...who cares about her.

[Archae]

25. Jill Stein is following in the footsteps of the other Green party loons.

In 2008, the Green Party had Cynthia McKinney as their candidate.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/11/266-cynthia-mckinney.html

And in Canada, the Green party "leader" is a vicious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028013823

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. Even if you think that what Snowden did was virtuous (which I don't)

This is pretty idiotic IMHO

[Squinch]

28. I am very curious to know who is sending out the memo to their minions that they need

to find threads like this and loudly insist that we are not allowed to criticize Jill Stein. What organization is doing this?

They are all very insistent and they all use the same argument, which is monumentally stupid: "You are not allowed to criticize her. You are only allowed to say what is good about Democrats."

Who ARE these people?

Lunacy abounds.

[TwilightZone]

51. The same people who never have anything good to say about Democrats.

Ironic, ain't it?

[Squinch]

53. The "Yes, Hillary aced the news cycle for Trump's VP announcement, BUT a decade ago she

did something wrong so let's talk about that" people.

[rjsquirrel]

32. You gotta give her credit

Probably the most attention her stupid party has ever been in a position to get and her first shot at breaking one half of one percent on election day and she decides to make it clear to the millions suddenly curious about third parties that the Greens stand for lunacy and represent the worst absurdities of the academic and high bourgeois far left -- your Susan Sarandons and Cornell Wests, utterly disconnected from any potential mass movement or sentiment, and utterly elitist in sense of ideological purism and mission, with a fetishistic level of belief in hidden conspiracies, all of which intersect in the DNC.

It's amazing the powers that be even let them live, to hear them tell it.

We all know the type in our everyday lives, and we avoid them the same way we avoid the Tea Party lechrous drunk uncle.

[oberliner]

35. I don't think she will break .5 percent

When all is said and done.

[KamaAina]

59. Why are the Greens not running Gayle McLaughlin, former mayor of Richmond, CA?

Unlike Stein, she has actually been in charge of something, and also unlike Stein, she does not have foot-in-mouth disease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayle_McLaughlin

[struggle4progress]

60. Richmond is bigger than Wasilla, but it still has only about 1/7 the population of Alaska

[KamaAina]

62. Perhaps, but Gayle can probably see SF's Russian Hill from her house

Last edited Sun Jul 17, 2016, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)