Pucers

Pucers https://www.dailykos.com/news/Pucers News Community Action Copyright 2005 - Steal what you want Sun, 26 Jan 2020 14:26:17 +0000 Sun, 26 Jan 2020 14:26:17 +0000 Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos) Daily Kos rss@dailykos.com (Daily Kos) Yes, the "Green" Party has Endorsed Trump Over Clinton https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/31/1589308/-Yes-the-Green-Party-has-Endorsed-Trump-Over-Clinton It's time to rename the American "Greens.” The Green Party’s presidential candidate, Jill Stein, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/posts/1342946029078917">posted today on Facebook </a>a link to an “Open Letter from the Social Media Director of the Stein/Baraka Campaign,” by someone whose name was given only as “Jillian.” The message reads: …A Clinton presidency is D A N G E R O U S … If a Trump presidency would mean that we have to fight ignorants in the streets—I’m ready for that. “ Not even the “we have to fight ignorants in the street” part, Jill? Is that a call to a gang fight or a misspelling? <blockquote> <div></div> </blockquote> <div> <div> <div> <div> Literary criticism aside, I consider this sufficiently official. Journalists have been pushing Stein to answer this question throughout the campaign; it has now been answered. Stein has been increasingly preparing her followers and the public for this idea over the last few weeks. She <a href="http://User%20Actions%20%20%20%20%20Follow%20%20%20Dr.%20Jill%20SteinVerified%20account%20%E2%80%8F@drjillstein%20hillary%20clinton%27s%20foreign%20policy%20is%20much%20scarier%20than%20donald%20trump%27s%2C%20who%20does%20not%20want%20to%20go%20to%20war%20with%20russia.%20/#PeaceOffensive">tweeted</a> on Oct. 14: <blockquote> Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump’s, who does not want to go to war with Russia. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PeaceOffensive?src=hash"><s>#</s>PeaceOffensive</a> </blockquote> She retweeted an article by her running mate Ajamu Baraka <a href="https://twitter.com/ajamubaraka/status/787274162347843584">on Oct 15</a> titled <a href="https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork" target="_blank">“</a><a href="https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork" target="_blank">Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump</a>,” which states: <blockquote> The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. </blockquote> <figure class="image-captioned"><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/J2gJlZ6.png?1"> <figcaption></figcaption> </figure> <figure class="image-captioned"><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/FOjjzpv.png?1"> <figcaption></figcaption> </figure> and <a href="https://twitter.com/ajamubaraka/status/787659341193220096">on Oct. 16</a> retweeted Baraka’s tweet: <blockquote> Expecting people of color to fear Donald Trump after all we’ve been through the last 200 years, is absurd. </blockquote> <figure class="image-captioned"><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/5ZTlBEL.png?1"> <figcaption></figcaption> </figure> On <a href="https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/posts/1330855140288006">Oct. 21</a> she posted on Facebook an article titled: <blockquote> What’s scarier than Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton’s plans to gut Social Security </blockquote> Greens have been spreading this message heavily on social media and in articles like <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Donald-Trump-is-not-as-by-John-Rachel-2016-Presidential-Election_Crooked-Hillary-Clinton_Donald-Trump_Donald-Trump-Campaign-161028-260.html">this</a> that state “Donald Trump as president will do ‘less damage‘.” This may surprise many unfamiliar with Green Party history, but it fully adheres to Green Party tradition. In 2000, Ralph Nader said on several occasions that he would prefer to see George W. Bush in the White House over Al Gore. Green Party leaders were open that their goal was to stop Al Gore. More history and analysis of this strange and very under-reported aspect of the Greens may be found at <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/10/20/the-green-party-openly-preferred-george-w-bush-in-2000-and-openly-prefers-donald-trump-now%E2%80%8B/">The Green Party Openly Preferred George W. Bush in 2000 and Openly Prefers Donald Trump Now</a>. It includes a summary of the political science consensus that yes, Nader cost Gore the election. But more startlingly are the credibly-sourced quotes from Ralph Nader on his preference for Bush, along with analysis from colleagues as to what motivated it. Some excerpts: <blockquote> When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush… If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.” </blockquote> In response to a reporter’s question “…does that mean you would not have a problem providing the margin of defeat for Gore?” <blockquote> “I would not — not at all,” Nader answered. “I’d rather have a provocateur than an anesthetizer in the White House. “ </blockquote> A news article reported: <blockquote> After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said: “If it were a choice between a provocateur and an ‘anesthetizer,’ I’d rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.”… in the past Nader has said that a Bush victory could have an oddly beneficial effect for the Green movement… Bush, Nader has said, could be the same kind of “provocateur” if elected. </blockquote> In an interview with Tim Russert: <blockquote> RUSSERT: Would it bother you that…Al Gore lost the election? NADER: No, not at all… There may be a cold shower for four years that would help the Democratic Party… It doesn’t matter who is in the White House. RUSSERT: … Would [Al Gore] not be better on [environmental and consumer] issues than George W. Bush? NADER: …no… regulatory agencies under Clinton/Gore are as bad or worse than under Reagan/Bush… </blockquote> This year’s Green Party mantra that the “GOP is less scary” was entirely predictable and independent of whatever candidate chosen by the Democratic party. History shows us it has very little to do with Hillary Clinton herself. Greens are currently defending Stein over<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/10/30/jill-stein-privately-invests-in-global-deforestation-and-the-corporations-she-publicly-attacks/"> revelations of her investments</a> in the world’s largest financial backer of palm oil plantations, the number one cause of deforestation in the world. In another illiberal act, last week <a href="https://bogardiner.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/jill-stein-calls-for-national-conversation-on-oppressive-comedians/">Stein bizarrely called fo</a>r a national “conversation” on “oppressive” comedians, following criticism by John Oliver of her vaccine views and economic plans. The Green Party has so many affinities with the alt-right that terms like “left” or “progressive” don’t seem fully appropriate. There’s the stated progressive platform, but that takes a back seat so readily to other objectives that a deeper analysis is needed to fully grasp how to characterize them. I suggest calling them the Puce Party, a brownish muddle of green and red. It's perfect: there's international confusion as to whether puce is green or red. In Europe puce is a shade of green (where their Green Party would never behave this way); in the U.S. puce is considered a murky reddish brown. Like I said... perfect. Besides, "Pucer" sounds like "Truther. “ [My first DK diary!] </div> </div> </div> </div> ------------------------------- UPDATE ------------------------------- 1) No, Snopes didn’t “debunk” this. The <a href="http://www.snopes.com/jill-stein-endorsed-donald-trump/" target="_blank">link </a>Greens are dishonestly using on tens of thousands of Facebook shares to deny the facts in this piece was written before the quotes here. Snopes is a glorious and venerable institution, but with a weak spot in its political coverage. Kim LaCapria, Libertarian (read: third-party fan) political writer for Snopes who wrote this, updated it yesterday in response to this post, but included only one of the new quotes, the first one below, omitting the most damaging. She dismisses the staffer’s letter as not from Stein, though Stein herself posted it. Worse, LaCapria omitted Stein’s retweet of her running mate, “The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton.” LaCapria, who often responds to tweets, has failed to reply to my tweets asking about the inexplicable omissions. LaCapria used the same strategy in her “<a href="http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/" target="_blank">Stein is Anti-Vax: FALSE</a>” piece, so startlingly below Snopes standards, where instead of reporting on the actual concern being raised by public health experts that Stein was pandering to anti-vaxxers by using their rhetoric and sowing vaccine distrust, LaCapria framed it as a meaninglessly simplistic strawman of whether Stein herself is anti-vax, which no serious writer had posited (and of course no actual anti-vaxxer ever admits to)). Her research included no medical experts, only a call to the Stein campaign: “Is Jill Stein anti-vax?” “No.” “Oh, okay.” Which is like reporting on whether Trump is racist with only a call to his campaign: “Is Donald Trump racist?” Under widespread criticism, LaCapria did as she does now, adding an incomplete and brief nod to the actual concern, but leaving the overall piece enormously deceptive. It worked: ever since, of course, we’ve all seen “Snopes debunked it!” each time we raise concerns about Green’s vaccine views. 2) This is not a news story claiming an official endorsement. This is a commentator making the case there has been a de facto endorsement. Obviously, not an endorsement of Trump over Stein , but of Trump over Clinton, to persuade voters who feel morally obliged to pick from the two possible victors. rss@dailykos.com (BoGardiner) GreenParty GreensForTrump JillStein PuceParty Pucers RalphNader Recommended _1589308 Mon, 31 Oct 2016 23:52:39 +0000