Indeed, I've more than once said I wish I had multiple left-liberal choices. Should the Socialist Party USA get on the Texas presidential ballot as a write-in, I'll consider it.
However, unlike the recently delinked Dan Arel, I won't puff up socialists by creating a strawman out of Greens. And as I said there, Dan, lemme know when Socialists of any party conduct a ballot access drive in Texas like Greens.
Also let me know when socialists of various non-Communist stripes can quit splitting, quit renaming, and form one stable, unified party.
And, I mentioned the magic word. Just like the German SPD refusing to coalition in 1932, I'll never vote Communist. (That includes "Socialist Workers" parties, speaking of splinters.)
As for Arel talking about how long Greens have had to become more of a force? Socialist Party USA stem from the old Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, which self-destructed in the 1940s by opposing entry to WWII, after in the 1930s wanting to ape the Communist Party by admitting Trotskyites.
Also contra that claim? The SPUSA has run a prez candidate every year since 1976. Greens only since 2004 (there was no national level Green Party in Nader's 2000 run.)
I also take voting third part enough to know that, unlike Dan Arel and his professed thoroughness, Bernie Sanders has been a de facto Democrat for more than 20 years.
So, Dan, it's fine if you wanted to leave the Green Party.
But be honest about both it, and its relatively short history, and the Socialists, and the fact that they've long had the chance to at least get back to 1930s strength and have failed. And that they've continued to splinter, even as the Socialism and Liberation Party also fields a prez candidate.
(Judging by a few of his tweets, Arel may also be a bit more Gnu Atheist friendly than I first thought, but that's another story.)
Update: I don't have a problem starting a Twitter war with him, whether on "call me in 20 years on Socialists," which has already started, or his apparent ongoing belief that Bernie's an actual independent. (And, Bernie's new cash cow bid with "Our Revolution" refutes THAT!) Arel also claims that Bernie's really left (NOT) and that he doesn't get why I bring it up.
I brought it up because it's part of bringing into question your political discernment bona fides.
He also claims she's pro-chemtrails, just because she posted one link about GMOs from a website that also believes in them.
Swiftboating. I'd never heard that accusation before. I've posted links from Faux News before, Dan? Does that make me a wingnut?
In his world, apparently it does. I called Bill Nye an attention whore — because he is — and Arel said that's part of my anti-science stance.
And, Dan, I'll be able to do that about the Socialist candidates too, even with less of an online paper trail.
Took 30 secs of Googling to find out that Socialists USA want to ban all GMOs. And, that, when asked about that, its prez candidate, Mimi Solystik, engaged in either ignorance or pandering of his own, claiming he didn't know where the science stood: "the approaches to the science may have developed since this particular plank was written."
That's from last year, but, from what I know, and from one of Arel's own comments on Twitter, that hasn't changed. The hypocrisy grows.
Arel now claims Solystik's talking to a biochemist. Let's see what happens. (The only claim to that which I've seen is on that same Reddit post.) He also said that he's working to change that. Lemme know when that happens, actually happens. I also pointed out to him that he didn't post anything about S-USA's anti-GMO stance on his blog when throwing Stein under the bus.
It's hypocrisy by non-disclosure. Either he knows that and is in denial, or else he doesn't know that, which makes him even more another overrated Patheos blogger.
Dan also claims that Socialists have more local official than Greens. Given that Socialists USA, on the party's website, don't even have a link to "local candidates," no way to even prove or disprove that.
More hypocrisy on that, via Twitter:
It also, re the organizational claims, has only four statewide S-USA party organizations; all others are locals, per this webpage.You sound like someone who learned about politics on Google.— Dan Arel (@danarel) August 27, 2016
SPUSA isn't in the election winning business. https://t.co/40plMIyWdJ
And, yes, I'll be expanding this into a separate blogpost, in all likelihood.