What do you say to a Green?

[Corydoras]

When I go to the Philly rally, I'll be staying with friends who have voted Green Party for years. My friends obviously don't vote on the basis of who can win! One of them will accompany me to the rally.

I have to admit to you, I know nothing about the Green Party and will read up about the basics.

But for those of you who know more about the Green Party than I do, what are the main points about Ron that might sway them towards him that I can bring up-- if any?

[jj111]

Ask them what their most important political issue(s) are, then show them how Ron Paul will solve the problem better than anybody else.

[jj111]

The Ransberger Pivot

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/libertarian/106540

[Bradley in DC]

I for one happily voted for Nader last time: good on privacy & civil liberties, suspicous of the Fed, stop taxpayer subsidies to polluters, non-interventionist foreign policy (wars are huge sources of pollution and waste of energy), against corporate welfare, wants to end the drug war, wants to end the special interest favoritism of government, was active in our Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful government spending, etc.

Go to my rant here:
http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22909

In addition, Dr. Paul as been active with the Green Party activists and others to fight for uniform treatment for third parties in federal elections, etc. They've routinely had meetings in his office and work together with him closely on these and other issues.

Dr. Paul and Ralph Nader are personal friends.

[Cindy]

I was a die hard green party voter for all the years I have been voting.

I wasn't as into it as I am with Pauls campaign however.

The choice to vote green was based on mostly the following that made it very easy to shift to Paul.

Voting Green was my way of saying "F" you to the corrupt One neo party acting like a 2 party system.

Greenies are STRONGLY for non interventionist foreign policy.

Greenies strongly want to take back the country from those who hijacked it from us- Those with and behind the Federal Reserve Bank and special interest groups.

Greenies believe in spending the money at HOME, not abroad.

Greenies are for smaller government.

Thats mostly what did it for me and why it was pretty easy to shift to Paul. Greenies are Pro Choice though, and that was the only hump I had to get over.

If your friends smoke pot, I don't, you may be able to sway them with Paul being agaisnt the war on drugs. Greenies are too. ( Though I don't smoke it, I agree it's a stupid waste of money and jail space to go after pot smokers)

Don't run on anything you know Nader to be about. Where Nader was big on government regulation programs, the Green party isn't. Nader did stand for the other issues I mentioned which is why, they teamed up for a time, his having name recognition and the Green party being the largest of the third parties.

Ultimately, they parted ways because of the differences with Government regulations.

Hope this helps some.

[me3]

I just watched a Nader speech today and couldn't help but here Dr. Paul's message embedded, but without the focus on the Constitution and a bit more a of a liberal leaning.

I have a lot of respect for Nader. I wonder if he would endorse Ron Paul.

[Corydoras]

My friends don't like the two-party system, but of the Dems and Republicans, they like Gravel more than Paul.

[hard@work]

When I go to the Philly rally, I'll be staying with friends who have voted Green Party for years. My friends obviously don't vote on the basis of who can win! One of them will accompany me to the rally.

I have to admit to you, I know nothing about the Green Party and will read up about the basics.

But for those of you who know more about the Green Party than I do, what are the main points about Ron that might sway them towards him that I can bring up-- if any?


1. "Do you have any idea the power of property rights and the idea that no individual has the right to polute your land, water, or ... AIR?!? It's revolutionary!"

2. We have to get Ron Paul into office so the Green Party actually can compete democratically. He's worked with the Green Party before and has supported their causes in the past. Even if he may not agree he is the only one who as president would work to give them a level playing field.


That's what I have for now.

[Cindy]

My friends don't like the two-party system, but of the Dems and Republicans, they like Gravel more than Paul.

Then here is the bottom line as it came down to it for me.

I voted for the Green nominee for President, even though I knew they wouldn't win, because, I wanted my voice on what was most important to me to be heard.

Pauls values are so similiar to that of the Greens, we now have an opporutnity, to vote with our hearts and minds, and for someone who has a real shot at actually winning.

It's a very exciting window that opened up and it may be the first, last and only chance in our life time. For any Greenie to not act on Paul just because he is the Republican nominee is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot when you have a clear shot at hitting the neocons and neolibs with a lethal bullet instead.

[Corydoras]

Why is Ron better than Gravel and Kucinich, from a Green perspective?

[hard@work]

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for every future "3rd" party. He's been quite clear on how he feels about competition for ideas, even those conflicting with his own. Another reason I love the man. Integrity at every corner.

[sandersondavis]

What do you say to a Green?

How about, "Hi, read this."

Link: Freedom Is the Environments Best Friend (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=7893)


Greens seem to be concerned about the environment and corporatism. I'm sure you know what environmentalism is but corporatism is another matter. Corporatism is that most unholy of alliances between business and the state. It is what most people mean when they complain about Special Interest Groups.

The above web site is a treasure trove of great information on both subjects.

My new mantra has become:
It's the CONSTITUTION, stupid.

[Cindy]

Why is Ron better than Gravel and Kucinich, from a Green perspective?

3 reasons



1) Kucinich is for expensive Socialists programs like Universal healthcare, Department of Public Education, and Reparations pay outs.

2) Gravel wants to put a tax on industry around the globe that pollutes the air.

Now tell me, WHO, is going to collect that global tax and WHO is going to enforce the collection of it?

His plan there is about as far away from non interventionists foriegn Policy as you can get-and crazy. What gives him ANY authority over the industry of other countries?

3) Gravel and Kucinich do not have a chance to win. Paul does. See my last post, about Paul being a last shot in our life time of getting the majority of our Green party values into the White House.

[hard@work]

See my last post, about Paul being a last shot in our life time of getting the majority of our Green party values into the White House.


Curious if you know what prevailing Green party sentiment is in regards to this campaign?

[MsDoodahs]

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8150

Maybe Gene Callahan has some ideas you can use in that piece?

:)

[brandon]

I voted for Nader in 2004. My views have changed much since then.

For example: Nader is famous for forcing car manufacturers to build seat belts in cars. Seat belts are obviously a great thing to have. But the federal government should not require it. People have the right to buy whatever kind of car they want. The free market would produce cars with seat belts, because that is what most people want. But shouldn't someone have the right to buy a car without a seatbelt if they want? This issue is parrellel to the drug war. The government cannot and should not stop us from hurting ourselves.

[Corydoras]

How about this? Social programs will require higher taxes, which means even more strong-arm threatened-violence tax collection tactics by the IRS?

[Cindy]

Curious if you know what prevailing Green party sentiment is in regards to this campaign?


That's all in my first reply to this thread. I think it's the second one.

Non interventionists foriegn policy is a BIGGY!

I think I forgot to add in it that a True Green ( not a Nader green) is opposed to special Interest lobbies.

Oh, and to whoever asked about Nader endorcing Paul, he is running as an Independent in some states for '08.

[RobotJaxxon]

I have known some Greens, and after talking through some issues I have been able to earn their respect, and this was well before the Ron Paul Revolution. My suggestions:

Strongly gear your points toward corruption in washington, that politicians don't respond to the wishes of the people, they respond to lobbyists and big corporations that buy influence.

Come back to the point that just putting different people into power won't fix the problem, reducing the power and influence wielded from washington is the answer. (You may need to walk through this one carefully, a lot of people don't seem to make this connection.)

Make the point that after 30 years in DC, being labeled as an outcast by even his own party, Ron Paul has not been corrupted, which is the best indication that he will follow through on his word as president.

On environmental issues, point out that the fight will never end to protect the environment through government policies because the policy will ebb and flow with the people in power. Point to things such as private land trusts as a much safer, long term solutions to protecting land, as they are free from the whims of government bureaucrats (and thus corporate lobbyists).

I would also agree with the point made earlier, ending the war on drugs is usually popular with the Greens.

Hope this helps!

[Cindy]

How about this? Social programs will require higher taxes, which means even more strong-arm threatened-violence tax collection tactics by the IRS?

How about this if you are taking that angle- Social programs make some special interest group RICH off of our higher taxes, and never work to serve in the best interest of the people they were meant to.
Examples-

The drug war is failing, putting non violent people in jail and or, jailing people who actually need rehab to help with their addictions. Like Paul says, drug addiction is a rehab medical problem, not a criminal problem. Mean while, big pharma benefits giving people thier highs and pain killers legally and synthetically. $15 Billion was just given to outsource a narco-terror drug war to Military Industrial Complex groups.

Welfare just breeds career welfare families that pass on the family business of making more babies to stay on it, from generation to generation. It ultimately weakens and cripples most of the people it's meant to strengthen to get back on their feet. Meanwhile, it attracts illegals who can use it, bringing in cheap labor for the elites.

The head of the Department of Education admitts that it is a disaster, and that no child left behind is not working. The teachers and students are bored and frustrated having to follow a stale federally regulated curriculum, and spend most of the day fact cramming for Federally mandated testing, instead of focusing on experiential learning which sticks better and is more enganging for the student and teacher.

Who benefits? The elites who get a force of worker bees that have it ingrained in them to not question authority or engange in independent criticle thought, or create competing Companies because, creative thinking energy was stifled by the stale federally mandated curriculum.

Universal healthcare? The quality will go down for everyone and Big Pharma and the health care industry will get uber wealthy rich because the government will force everyone to pay for it through taxes, want it , need it, or not. They can raise the prices as well because there will be no competition.

I think you are getting the idea of the section I bolded.

[TruckinMike]

In A nut shelll....BINGO!

Right On Cindy... My sentiments exactly!:D

Truckinmike

[RonPaulIsGood]

say the same to a democrat
Greens are progressives who like big local government and affirmative action
(source http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/)
They dislike corporations
they like regulation reform, not regulation elimination