While I continue to share Noam Chomsky's view that progressives who live in swing states should hold their collective noses and vote for Hillary because a Trump presidency would do nothing less than threaten mankind's survival, I do believe that a combination of the Sanders-led political revolution and Dr. Jill Stein's candidacy have enhanced the prospects that the future may include a Green Party that could eventually challenge the stranglehold of the duopoly on our national politics.

In Revolution at a Crossroad I observed that as of July 10 the Green Party had ballot access in only twenty-four (24) states and the District of Columbia. However, the Green Party now reports: "

The accompanying ballot map reflects that there are four (4) states (CT, ID and AL) where they are awaiting the results of petitions they filed for ballot access, two states (NV and OK) where lawsuits are pending, and six states (KY, ND, NH, RI, VA and WY) were the party is actively petitioning to gain ballot access.

While I doubt it will occur, there can be no question but that the nation as a whole would benefit from the inclusion of both Stein and Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson in the debates. From a purely educational perspective, the American electorate would benefit from a serious discussion of the issues those two candidates would add. A U.S. presidential election should never be reduced to questions about Hillary's emails or whether Donald Trump is certifiably insane.

Finally, while I think that the long term prospects of a robust Green Party are something that ought to be encouraged, I remain of the opinion set forth in my 2011 article, Occupy Electoral Politics that, from a tactical standpoint, progressives' prospects for success are more likely to be achieved by continuing the effort initiated by Bernie Sanders during this election cycle to effectuate revolutionary change within the Democratic Party.

I feel the liberal wing of the Democratic Party should take a position that McConnell took with Obama, and make her a one term president, unless of course,she mutates into FDR...

"...you are minimizing or ignoring how [her] policies would impact real people in this country." Her policies will have a deleterious impact on people here and around the globe. Trump is a blowhard ignoramus. I won't vote for either of the miscreants under any circumstances.

She's a war hawk who has voted to bomb countries where she knew that the victims of those blasts are innocent, intensifying the refugee crisis. She's backed coups that's lead to years of mayhem. She's made herself fabulously wealthy through arms deals facilitated by the Clinton Foundation, a shakedown operation, and with "speaking fees" aka bribes from banksters. She's promoted fracking globally which will toxify water for all generations to come. She's taken campaign money from the private prison racketeers. She and Bill used the same Delaware tax dodging address as Trump, who'd been Bill's golfing buddy when Bill encouraged him to run. Trump and Bill availed themselves of the same pimp, Jeffrey Epstein, who supplied them and other "luminaries" underage girls, and served an exceedingly brief sentence courtesy of Alan Dershowitz, another of his customers. Don't imagine Hillary didn't know all this. She's not in a marriage with Bill; it's a business partnership.

Brad, in your discussion with Matthew Rozsa you said that the threat of having a climate change denier like Trump in the White House is much more concerning than having someone like Hillary who is "consistent with the scientific consensus."

You, if no one else, should know that having a President who's beliefs are simply "consistent with the scientific consensus." is not good enough. What we need NOW, not in 2020 or 2024, is a President who will ACT consistently with the scientific consensus by promoting legislation that keeps fossil fuels in the ground, and transitions America onto 100% renewable energy sources ASAP.

Hillary Clinton, as good as she is on SOME, but not all, identity politics issues, is too deeply indebted to Big Business, including the Fossil Fuel Industry, to ever do more than propose incremental changes in energy policy.

As you noted, it is the Democrats, under President Obama, who have dramatically expanded off-shore oil exploration; and, it will be the Democrats under President Hillary Clinton (who, as Secretary of State, promoted fracking around the world), who will continue America on a green-washed energy policy that promotes fracked natural gas as a bridge fuel. You know, as well as I do, that the "bridge fuel" argument is an Fossil Fuel Industry "red herring." Once America gets hooked on "cleaner" natural gas, the transition to 100% renewables will only happen "with all deliberate speed."

The climate science is, indeed, "nightmarish," and it is telling us that we don't have time to wait for Democrats to grow enough of a spine to stand up against the Fossil Fuel industry.

Claiming it is better to vote for Hillary just to prevent Trump from becoming pResident, is like claiming it is better to be shot in the head with a .32, to prevent being shot in the head with a .45. Either way, the results are the same.

Stop making a false choice out of fear by voting for the lesser of two evil candidates who both represent and evil duopoly, which is controlled by an evil oligarchy.

Jill Stein 2016, Not Evil

Stephen Justino said @4:

Brad, in your discussion with Matthew Rozsa you said that the threat of having a climate change denier like Trump in the White House is much more concerning than having someone like Hillary who is "consistent with the scientific consensus."

Just to be clear, that was Matthew's phrase, though I do agree with his general argument there.

You, if no one else, should know that having a President who's beliefs are simply "consistent with the scientific consensus." is not good enough.

And I agree with that as well.

What we need NOW, not in 2020 or 2024, is a President who will ACT consistently with the scientific consensus by promoting legislation that keeps fossil fuels in the ground, and transitions America onto 100% renewable energy sources ASAP.

I agree with that also. But, of course, simply "promoting legislation" is not nearly enough. They have to be able to enact such legislation and/or enact executive actions that lead toward that end.

Hillary Clinton, as good as she is on SOME, but not all, identity politics issues, is too deeply indebted to Big Business, including the Fossil Fuel Industry, to ever do more than propose incremental changes in energy policy.

I guess we can discuss what "incremental changes" are, but, just to give us a base of discussion, she has called for 50% carbon-free electricity by 2030. According to the issue page on her website, that includes a "day one" effort to "Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term."

Not that's a rather lofty goal that would require somewhat more than "incremental change". Still, if you listen to scientists (as I do), it's not nearly enough to take on the menace that the globe now faces. But, of course, it will give humanity's chance of surviving much more of a fighting chance than under a President who believe climate change is a "hoax" and who has vowed to grant the fossil fuel industries wishes by rolling back all federal regulations concerning the exploitation of fossil fuels across the entire country.

As you noted, it is the Democrats, under President Obama, who have dramatically expanded off-shore oil exploration

Correct. They have also dramatically reduced exploration and exploitation in other areas at the same time. Or, at least, called for it (depending on where you are looking). Still, it remains "not enough" for the challenge we now face.

and, it will be the Democrats under President Hillary Clinton (who, as Secretary of State, promoted fracking around the world), who will continue America on a green-washed energy policy that promotes fracked natural gas as a bridge fuel. You know, as well as I do, that the "bridge fuel" argument is an Fossil Fuel Industry "red herring."

Well, it certainly is now. But, in truth, it wasn't originally, as even many environmentalists regarded it as a better, safer, cleaner option than coal. That is, by and large, still true, even if it has other problems associated with it. But to say the "bridge fuel" argument is "nothing more than a Fossil Fuel Industry 'red herring'", is overstating the case and how we got here. (Once again, just for the case of accuracy in this conversation.)

But, of course, it's not only a choice between NatGas and Coal (or shouldn't be) and, thus, I'd point you back to Clinton's issue statement above. That's not by way of lauding it, or even using it to support her or defend against your point. It's just by way of pointing out facts. For what they are worth.

Once America gets hooked on "cleaner" natural gas, the transition to 100% renewables will only happen "with all deliberate speed."

Perhaps. We've seen that happen already. Though, as noted, a case can be (and has been) made, even by environmentalists that burning NatGas is an improvement over Coal. So, with that "improvement" behind us, what next? That seems to be at the heart of your point here.

The climate science is, indeed, "nightmarish," and it is telling us that we don't have time to wait for Democrats to grow enough of a spine to stand up against the Fossil Fuel industry.

Fair enough. So what's your suggestion?

Kevin Schmidt said @5:

Claiming it is better to vote for Hillary just to prevent Trump from becoming pResident, is like claiming it is better to be shot in the head with a .32, to prevent being shot in the head with a .45. Either way, the results are the same.

With all due respect --- and I am trying to exercise some pretty serious restraint in this comment in offer of that respect --- I couldn't disagree more wholeheartedly with your inaccurate, lazy and wildly misleading analogy.

Even Trump supporters will want to put a .32 and a .45 to their head within a month of the realization of his presidency.

Believe me! Believe me!

Candidates, media, and corporations who abide by and profit from rigged elections are too corrupt to do enough good for the public citizenry. So, good luck to all the ongoing lawsuits to try to recover and prove our Democracy. They should each reference Bev Harris's work:

http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-part-6/
Fraction Magic – Part 6: Execution Capacity
By Bev Harris June 14, 2016
6 – Middlemen, Inside Access and Manipulation –

I eagerly await Bev's upcoming chapters:

Part 7: Whodunnit – coming –
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-7


Part 8: Solutions and Mitigations – coming –
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-8
...........

https://twitter.com/Elect_Justice

Election Justice USA is declaring an #ElectionAction on 9/27/16 calling for an end to #ElectionFraud

lulu Fries'dat @luluFriesdat Aug 31
On right now with @AlisonRoseLevy - just dicussed fractionalized voting - and announced the #ElectionAction on 9//27 to support #HCPB

https://twitter.com/hash.../ElectionAction?src=hash
https://twitter.com/hashtag/HCPB?src=hash
https://twitter.com/hash...tedPaperBallots?src=hash

Candidates, media, and corporations who abide by and profit from rigged elections are too corrupt to do enough good for the public citizenry.

When the lights go out, I wouldn't want to have been "them." With fairness in the universe, I pray they have better luck with their own exposed opsec/comsec and are able to avoid the pitchforks and people anger targeted fate. Hope their corporation was able to keep their private info secret...

It's called a death cult.
It's why there's no rule of law.

You won't fix this with a band-aid, this time it's going to take an ISRAELI bandage.

But you know, your born and you die, enjoy the ride I say, I almost died two years ago.

Maybe your a vet, you have pain. You use (note I didn't say smoke) cannabis. OPM has leaked your data and ISIS has targeted you cause of OPM. You go to buy a handgun and Bzzzzzt@2A_INFRINGED

What is wrong here is called TREASON.
Treason is why there is a ONE PARTY system.