[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Fwd: [gpca-forum] Endorsing Dems?!?!?

[Jason Kishineff]

Yes, James, I am very familiar with the CFAR, as I am a signer of that contract. I believe the theory behind that contract is that all of the agenda items are non-partisan and supported by a majority of voters. I agree with everything you're saying about the CFAR missing improving third party access and making our own version for non-Green endorsement, and I'm 99% sure that the 4 non-Greens that we did endorse would support that agenda item. I also think the majority of voters support greater third party access, but I believe the creators deliberately wanted it non-partisan. I had no problem agreeing to sign it, since the items on it (ending the war in Afghanistan, universal health, tuition-free college) are all things I'm fighting for anyway. 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: 1 <jbrjaw1 at gmail.com>
To: GPCA Media Committee <gpca-mediawg at lists.cagreens.org>; GPCA member general discussion <gpca-forum at lists.cagreens.org>; GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>; Green Party of California <gpca at cagreens.org>
Sent: Thu, Apr 19, 2018 7:14 pm
Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Fwd: [gpca-forum] Endorsing Dems?!?!?



Is anyone here familiar with CFAR? Anyone?


Hey, Dumbocrats (neoliberal/corporatist judiciaries, legislators & executives at the state and federal political level, not the U.S. Voting Republic) are the left side of the Repiglicans (the crazies, not the U.S. Voting Republic), they both suck, and we all know that, but the CFAR is missing one important demand... "Allow 3rd or more political parties to participate on the debate stage - no matter what the polls say." 
We must demand many things from those that we endorse, including the CFAR, and most importantly to allow Greens in Debates and, the CFAR does not have that indicated, anywhere.


I strongly believe that we need our own contract with those that we support/endorse that are not Greens, and it should include the following:
The Green New Deal
Allow 3rd + Parties to Debate
CFAR
uhhh, that's all I can think of right now.


Mahalo, all! 


James Young
SGA O.C. / MCM GPCA


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: 1 <jbrjaw1 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [gpca-forum] Endorsing Dems?!?!?
To: GPCA member general discussion <gpca-forum at lists.cagreens.org>



Is anyone here familiar with CFAR?
Hey, dems are the left side of the repubs, the both suck, and we all know that, but the CFAR is missing one important demand...
"Allow 3rd or more political parties to participate on the debate state - no matter what the polls say."
We must demand many things from those that we endorse, including the CFAR, and most importantly to allow Greens in Debates.
Which, the CFAR does not have, anywhere.
We need our own contract with those that we support/endorse that are not Greens.


James Young
SGA O.C. / MCM GPCA







On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:07 PM, james clark via gpca-forum <gpca-forum at lists.cagreens.org> wrote:

Noticing a certain county endorsing a lot of demoncrats. I find this problematic as it helps raise up a corrupt party, and works to delegitimize the values of the green party. Should county's not seeking to find greens to run, or find non corporate party candidates rather than endorse candidates from a party we are trying overcome? If we are to be taken seriously we should avoid empowering the very party's that fight against greens having a place on the ballot. Thoughts??

_______________________________________________
gpca-forum mailing list
Reminder: Please do not "Reply All" or include other addresses in the CC line -- only use "Reply"

gpca-forum at lists.cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-forum_lists.cagreens.org







-- gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes at sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180419/3fd98379/attachment.html>