To even make that assertion undermines the suppositions behind it.

Common, you can bet our ass the real reason is there's just something about her the do not like.... And they are grasping at straws and parroting crap just to avoid some sorely needed examination of the root of these feelings.
I have met a lot of people who can only come up with the vaguest of complaints about her actions, know little about American political history yet are sure she deserves their hatred. Often otherwise nice people. Just intellectually very lazy and following others.

So what's the point?

basically bought and paid for by the highest bidder, with notable exceptions, I'm pretty sure the opinion of somebody who does want Stein would be that if congress is going to pass it, it's probably bad, so putting somebody in power who is at odds with the establishment, would at least be an opportunity to bring a spot-light on issues that have been ignored in congress for the last 30 years. I was a Sanders supporter, and I had no illusions about whether or not he could have gotten anything passed.(Of course I was also never under any illusions that he could win this thing either.) But that was not the point. It was hopefully a chance to change what politics sounds like, and what the people demand in their politicians.

things I read about Clinton was posted right here, on DU.

As 1st lady of Arkansas she did not fight to end Apartheid. Therefor she supported it.

You know - commie, pinko socialist.

But these guys are pushing me to the middle. Who wants to be associated with the level of stupidity represented by these idiots? Standing outside the wall and tossing rocks doesn't equal change. Neither does tearing down the wall in letting the roving hoards take over. They are vocabulary challenged. They need to learn some words: Nuance. Sanity. Compassion.

These fools you are talking about are for the most part liberal isolationists. A group the far-left wants nothing to do with. They try to promote themselves as the far-left just to attach themselves to our real movement/revolution. They have no other way to stay relevant. Not that their current approach is keeping them relevant. lol.

There are definitely some Greens who are to my left. I'm a lefty for sure, but that doesn't mean I want to dismantle the whole capitalist economy or that I think anyone who works for a corporation is evil.

But, yeah, a lot of the Greens are either just stupid, or else so blinded by their hatred of Clinton that they can't think straight.

is ensuring that we always vote for the "lesser evil," no matter what that looks like, so fuck that. People should vote their conscience, and those votes that don't go to the dems in a cycle, but go to somebody further to the left become a reason for the party to court those votes in the future by offering policies that that contingent cares about.

I am voting for Hillary this cycle, because the Dems have appeased the left by fashioning the current dem platform, which, lets be honest, was definitely left of what Clinton campaigned on during the primaries.

It is in my opinion, pretty unlikely that Trump could have directly done anything to do with policy however, not just because of the Dems, but because most republicans don't like him either. Assuming he got that far, some would have been sycophant opportunists trying to ride his success, as we see a few of them today, but there would have been others who would remain genuinely at odds with him, either because he was bound to be a sinking ship that takes them with him, or because he's a loose canon who they can't count on. As to his role as commander and chief, well that brings up the more rational contingent of the conservatives that would be genuinely afraid of him. The concerted effort to tie his hands by the media and insiders would ensure he was locked down in terms of actual power. Why? because at the end of the day, the establishment actually likes stability. Maybe destabilizing part of the third world is good for some disaster capitalism, but destabilizing the whole world is awful for establishment interests.

That said, Trump would be a horrible public relations disaster, hurting our influence and standing in the world,and his win would come with, I assume, republican wins in the house and senate, assuming even lower enthusiasm for Clinton than for Trump in the GE. Thankfully that isn't going to happen, and it is one of the other reasons I decided that I would help to give Hillary the win in November. Before, I was uncomfortable giving somebody a mandate for a platform that felt so far to the right of me, and it seemed like doing so would be buttressing the status-quo, which I still blame for the creation of phenomenons like Trump and future Trumps. But now I want to give Clinton all the tools at her disposal to actually enact the policies that got into the platform, and I'm hoping for an enthusiastic and large turn-out in support of her.

But I still respect positions that have been arrived at thoughtfully, whether of hold-outs, or of Democrats who came early to a clear conclusion that Clinton is a good choice who will move us as a nation in the right(read as left) direction. It would be nice if more people focused on deconstructing the arguments themselves, and less on the name calling and shaming, because then, maybe more people would have an opportunity to make the choice I'm making and for similar reasons, but that's probably a lot to hope for.

People with a conscience don't throw their vote away in the face of the threat Trump poses. That's not "voting one's conscience."

As for policy, you don't think the GOP would go along with Trump in getting rid of the estate tax? Or repealing Obamacare? Or privatizing social security? Or appointing right-wing justices?

Why not? These are all things that the GOP wanted to do before Trump was in the picture.

Don't be selfish. Be more concerned about those less fortunate than you are about youself.

Selfish and self centered. Everyone else has to make tough decisions while they sit around complaining and acting purer than thou.

He would need to have a filibuster proof majority to get those sorts of things, save the justices, and it would be impossible to get anybody to cross over the aisle, as other GOP Presidents have been able to get from Dems in the past. He's just too toxic.

It would still be nice if you stepped away from the rhetoric. "greens have no shame and no conscience." You assume you understand them and their justifications, and from the sound of your simplistic broad-brush characterization, you probably don't.

So a Trump presidency guarantees large tax breaks for the rich and for corporations. And the GOP has already talked about using reconciliation to repeal Obamacare, or at least parts of it. As far as SS, they might not be able to peel off enough Dems to privatize it, but there are enough centrist Dems to pass COLA reductions.

And like I said in the OP, it is astoundingly stupid for Greens to argue that on one hand there's no difference between Trump and Hillary, and on the other that Dems in congress, most of whom are to the right of Hillary, can be relied on to protect us from Trump. That makes no sense. If most Dems are really no better than Trump, then why on earth would they filibuster his agenda?

Beyond that, Trump can do huge amounts of damage with executive actions and appointments. The environment would take a huge hit as he reverses everything Obama has done with the EPA. And Trump being Trump, he is certain to push the limits of executive actions. There is no filibuster check on executive actions, just the Supreme Court, which will have five right-wingers once Trump gets his appointment. You think that court is going to overturn his executive orders to ban Muslim immigration, slash environmental regulations, and begin mass deportations? Really?

As for empty rhetoric, nothing is more empty than Greens who pretend they are "voting their conscience" when in fact they are helping Trump get elected. I do understand them and their justifications, just as I understand Trump voters and their justifications. Greens are upper-middle class, mostly white people who have the privilege to not suffer the worst consequences of a Trump presidency, whose "consciences" direct them to let other people suffer for their own hopeless ideological crusade.

Heck, a lot of Greens (e.g. Susan Sarandon) are going to be getting a big tax cut from Trump. Convenient, don't you think? They get to pretend to be driven by moral purity, while at the same time helping elect a guy who will fatten their wallets.

better than Trump? I know others have said that, perhaps Jill Stein, but you are still painting with a conveniently broad brush in order to make your point. Sarandon said that a Trump Presidency would hasten a revolution. I think she's probably right. People have been lulled to sleep and not particularly encouraged to be actively political, and I'm pretty sure people who thought everything was just fine would actually start caring, and more people might actually get educated on the Constitution and their duty as US citizens.

Now I have already clarified that I am voting for Hillary. I'm going to take her at her new word, and try to give her all the tools at her disposal to actually follow through with some of her recent platforms. I think she intends to do good, I just think sometimes what that is gets lost when you operate in the world that establishment politicians do, or the compromises made to do that little bit of good can really tie your hands in the most significant trouble areas. I think Thomas Franks "Listen, Liberal" is a pretty good characterization of how the party's mindset has changed over time. But I think its good that Hillary has had an opportunity to tac left in response to a groundswell of desire for her to do so, and maybe all she's needed is some of that fundamental support in order stave off the corporate owned media's take-down of her "too left for America agenda." Also, as I've said, risking losing the White House is possibly risking losing more seats in the Senate and the Congress, and that means that not only "middle-of-the-road" pro corporate dems are at risk, but the far more liberal ones as well.

But people who are still skeptical of our very system and feel like they are being manipulated by some "good cop" "bad cop" kabuki theater, have a legitimate perspective, and I can understand, as somebody who was one of them(and I'm just holding out hope that its not the case), why voting for status-quo on things like money in politics and more trade deals--because look at the other side! would seem like playing into somebody's game. I do absolutely blame our pro-corporate wing of the party as part of the money machine that has brought us Trump, by catering to the wrong interests, becoming mum on some of the most egregious sicknesses that are undermining our national health, and not taking up a class-war narrative that would have galvanized the poor and the middle class, rather than allowing the media and the GOP to divide us over how to divvy up the scraps. For those who look at that trajectory and only see more Trumps in the future unless something drastically changes, no I don't think they are being selfish. You can disagree with their logic, but quit trying to undermine their characters.

Jill Stein has said that Clinton is no better, but she spends all her time attacking Clinton and not Trump, so it's pretty clear which of the two she prefers. And the HA Goodmans of the world have made it clear that they think Trump is the lesser evil, as have posters on the hate/conspiracy website that spun off from DU. Moreover, the act of voting for Stein is in itself a statement that the voter doesn't think there's any difference between Trump and Clinton, otherwise they wouldn't throw their vote away in such a critical election, and particularly not throw their vote to someone who is on record over and over saying that there's no difference between the two.

Speaking of which: has Stein or anyone on the far left even mentioned the hateful racist speech that Trump gave last night? And I don't mean just as a segue to say "Clinton is worse," I mean condemned Trump on his own. Have any of them said that Trump is a threat to the nation and under no circumstance should be allowed to be president? No, they don't say that. They make excuses for Trump. He doesn't really mean it, he'll be controlled, etc.

I basically agree with your assessment of Hillary, but there's a big thing you're leaving out, which is GOP obstruction. Without the House, progress is going to be a slow grind, there's nothing that can be done about that in our system. This is another thing the Green party idiots don't seem capable of grasping. "Why didn't Obama raise the minimum wage?" they ask. Because he can't just do that, it needs to pass through the house and senate. Karl Marx could have been president the last 6 years, and the minimum wage would still be the same.

People who think they are manipulated by "good cop bad cop" are conspiracy minded idiots. Because they are assuming that both cops are putting on a show, but really are on the same side, colluding. Who in their right mind could think the GOP and Dems are on the same side? Who in their right mind could think that the whole Benghazi witch-hunt is just for show, part of some "collusion" between Hillary and the Republicans?

Corporate Dems aren't responsible for Trump, racism is. Trump voters are wealthier than average and don't come from places hurt by free trade. And Trump wants to cut taxes for large corporations and rich people. Any anti-corporate, anti-inequality person who even considers voting for Trump is an idiot, there's no other way to put it. You think sane people fed up with income inequality are going to vote for a corrupt billionaire with a team of hedge fund managers as economic advisors, who wants to give himself and the rest of his billionaire friends more billions by getting rid of the estate tax? No.

in a back room. I'm not saying people even see that they are a part of it. Generally speaking their world-view--which must justify themselves first and foremost, since cognitive dissonance is a bitch--tends to adhere to their actions. There is engineering going on, but its a lot of individual interests that tend to support the same thing, which is getting a bigger piece of the green.

the Bengazi thing is a totally awesome example of partisan bullshit that just works out for the establishment, since the constant absurd assaults on Hillary and the Clintons and middle of the road democrats in general has only tefloned them against a range of criticism, because democrats have rallied behind them in response. The problem is that any criticism is often lumped in as an attack from the right, and on top of that, it has given democrats cover for why they have had to move right. Basically, we've been saying "okay, we understand given the climate," but they've been helping to cultivate that climate in the process. It is not at all a coincidence that the media started painting moderates as liberals. It pushed liberals and liberal issues off the map entirely as a result.

Racism is fed by having reasons to hate; reasons to think of people as other. I'm not saying we aren't built for it, but its impossible to take that down in a climate that pits the poor against the middle class, and entirely continues to ignore the rich who have all the actual money. what you have is people needing to justify why somebody else doesn't deserve what they have, and especially anything of theirs. That comes from loss avoidance. They have been told that these people are the ones taking from them. They are in a state of stress, and because they already have their prejudices, they are easily manipulated into believing this, and THAT is because we abdicated giving them a better, more truthful, narrative.

Go fig.

has often been prone to being dupes of authoritarians and fascists. Germany is a prime example.

I can think of almost nothing more excruciatingly obvious than that Trump must be electorally CRUSHED. And if that means that that those of us who consider ourselves dark green Marxists MUST vote for HRC, so be it. Duh. Sorry, but your acquaintance's spewings are beneath contempt.