X-Envelope-From: X-Envelope-To: Received: from omr-a018e.mx.aol.com (unknown) by localhost (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTPS id w310Jod1025236 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:19:51 -0700 (envelope-from ); Received: from mtaomg-aal02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-aal02.mx.aol.com [172.27.20.208]) by omr-a018e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 0B64838000B3 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-leb09g.mail.aol.com (core-leb09.mail.aol.com [10.76.9.9]) by mtaomg-aal02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 5223F38000081 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 67.188.44.11 by webjas-vae201.srv.aolmail.net (10.96.23.204) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:57:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:57:08 -0400 From: Jason Kishineff To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Message-Id: <1627e7e480b-c8e-4093@webjas-vae201.srv.aolmail.net> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_20202_1645081513.1522540627977" X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: JAS STD X-Originating-IP: [67.188.44.11] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1522540628; bh=qSPvu79T1uvmQRCSfKt37i9hfv5GCfaCZpGDuj28wLI=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=0DpAeEBQ5MYTEMAZ0ch1VHiT/jD3al2qivcEqFGoEoyPIQdyZVngVmpjmbG+ZfxAt l3odE6wLpOqEuwYNJQA81icMGFGX6xnEyqKvubS9Dwye4iZUsxorm8DOsQnnZwdJrl 28jis1KM6bf1Yw9C7AeoHGZWFduDO0p6/uz/vYNQ= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1b14d05ac020545b42 X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:22:36 by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (gateway [0.0.0.0]); Sat, 31 Mar 2018 17:19:52 -0700 (PDT) ------=_Part_20202_1645081513.1522540627977 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My words exactly, Victoria. These people are CLEARLY trying to work WITH us= , not against us. Why should we NOT help them, when there is no Green in th= e race? Are we for the change we are fighting for or are we for the party, = possibly to the detriment of the cause?=20 =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Victoria Ashley To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2018 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 15= 1, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: >>Where is our integrity? To me, integrity is supporting = progressives who are already supporting us, like Gayle McLaughlin and the Peace & Fre= edom Party Of California, who have already endorsed Green Party candidates li= ke Jason Kishineff for the June election. [...]=20 Content analysis details: (5.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -----------------------------------------------= --- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail pr= ovider (victronix01[at]gmail.com) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (victronix01[at]gmail.com) 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from a= uthor's domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signa= ture 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessa= rily valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay li= nes 5.5 KAM_STOCKTIP Email Contains Pump & Dump Stock Tip The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor. =09 Attached Message =09 =20 =09=09=09 From =09=09=09 Victoria Ashley =20 =20 =09=09=09 To =09=09=09 GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion =20 =20 =09=09=09 Subject =09=09=09 Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & = 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office =20 =20 =09=09=09 Date =09=09=09 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:27:58 -0700 =09=09 =09 >>Where is our integrity? To me, integrity is supporting progressives who are already supporting us, = like Gayle McLaughlin and the Peace & Freedom Party Of California, who have= already endorsed Green Party candidates like Jason Kishineff for the June = election. -- Victoria On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Nicole Castor w= rote: Thanks Linda!=20 I agree with you, too! At a time when we are teetering into obscurity and t= owards the threat of losing ballot access, it seems irresponsible to be tak= ing such a risk when there is no emergency which would drive us to be so de= sperate. We should be taking careful consideration with the things you=E2= =80=99ve mentioned specifically- what our potential endorsees are doing and= endorsing are a reflection of our stances and policies as well. And in an = example of this playing out- if we endorse someone we are referring voters = to them. In turn, they refer voters to a candidate of a corporate party, th= is hurts us!=20 -N On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 9:37 AM wrote: I agree with you, Nicole! So, 155 proposes that we may endorse candidates who support Green values an= d who don't take corporate donations even if they are not registered Green. Everyone seems to assume that automatically excludes endorsing a Democrat a= s they are a "corporate party." But then, what if said independent candidate, endorsed by the Green Party, = in turn endorses a Democrat instead of a Green? Where is our integrity? How do we reconcile this inconsistency? Aren't we = then indirectly endorsing a Democrat, a corporate party candidate? What message does that send to left leaning voters? Also, again, we Greens "give up" an endorsement to a non Green who in turn = does not reciprocate, but instead endorses a Democrat. I don't see how that is building our Green Party, nor promoting our values;= in fact, it seems to do the opposite. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion Sent: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 4:10 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 15= 1, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Re Steve I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward = proposal. I=E2=80=99m not sure where the impression of =E2=80=9Cfear=E2=80= =9D comes from, as I=E2=80=99m using good old fashioned logic to come to th= e conclusion that the proposal does not take much of anything into account.= It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. T= he arguments I=E2=80=99ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively = enthusiastic about the possible outcomes.=20 The specific language is the part where the word, =E2=80=9CGreen,=E2=80=9D = disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone invol= ved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering thei= r time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don=E2=80=99t know why this is such a diff= icult concept to grasp.=20 I=E2=80=99ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next vot= ing period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good cand= idates in a way which doesn=E2=80=99t defeat our purpose in being a legitim= ate political party. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove wro= te: Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to b= e more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know= what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended = to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such. On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" wrote: Steven & others,=20 What I=E2=80=99m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always= open for non green endorsements as if it=E2=80=99s our main objective rath= er than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specifi= c circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this i= s how we represent our party. We=E2=80=99re not a coalition, we are a polit= ical party.=20 On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove wr= ote: Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We a= re explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE = BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate = in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligate= s us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision.=20 What in the language makes you think otherwise? On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris wrote: We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it= might even be in their ballot statement. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks wrote: There isn=E2=80=99t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportion= al Representation, precisely because we haven=E2=80=99t built nearly enough= respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to mak= e that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic t= o empower an effective organizing coalition. The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with = others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them. That=E2=80=99s what this Bylaws change is all about. Eric Brooks SF, CA =20 From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of Nicol= e Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 15= 1, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing = along with other parties right now?=20 =20 If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Represe= ntation at this moment when we decide on this proposal? =20 Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our b= ylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to = Proportional Representation? =20 Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to = give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing= non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through leg= islative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO. =20 -N =20 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks wrote: Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because = in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and= others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and = activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our re= lationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm=E2=80=99s length= . Eric Brooks SF, CA =20 From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of Nicol= e Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 15= 1, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional repr= esentation to sell this proposal.=20 =20 If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain ti= me- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass spec= ific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for i= t and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is = in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct eff= ect on specific legislation like proportional representation.=20 =20 Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People= =E2=80=99s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning = into a =E2=80=9CMelting Pot=E2=80=9D of ideology where each distinct party = involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race = relations, =E2=80=9CMulti-Culturalism,=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CCultural Plural= ism is better than =E2=80=9CMelting Pot=E2=80=9D because of respect to dive= rsity and differences. =20 https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism =20 http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf =20 =20 As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises wh= ich we agree on. We don=E2=80=99t have to forfeit our unique party identity= in the process. =20 Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party ta= kes away significance of our distinction from other parties.=20 =20 If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically inste= ad of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I=E2=80=99ve menti= oned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and i= t=E2=80=99s a good example of what we could propose. =20 There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which= is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party= . For this reason, I=E2=80=99m voting NO on this proposal. =20 -N =20 On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt wrot= e: Erik, =20 The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to prov= ide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or= anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alt= ernative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism a= nd state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutua= lism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense,= both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad= . On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differen= ces historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifes= ting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Gree= n and conventional "left" politics.=20 =20 I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist wh= o considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone= the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional lefti= sts, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological diffe= rences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory= crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase = all the distinctions that make us unique. =20 Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one sing= le national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon = dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have histori= cally displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained nea= r zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represe= nt a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter regi= stration of the Green Party nationally. =20 As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes s= ense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the dist= inctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies o= n the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Gr= een Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist = left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distin= ctions in pursuit of alliances. =20 On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nat= ionally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left= parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a= hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionali= zed American statist left doing so. =20 Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik wrote: We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.=20 =20 The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The G= CC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for bo= th.=20 =20 Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is = that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional = Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with = the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the an= ti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Represen= tation those that aren=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9CGreen Enough=E2=80=9D will be fre= e to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true= multiparty system(Proportional Representation) =20 For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian =E2=80=9CI=E2=80=99m= better than you.=E2=80=9D arrogance... it=E2=80=99s not a good look for us= . You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I=E2=80=99m with you 100%.= Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressi= ve Independent Party, African People=E2=80=99s Socialist Party, Party for S= ocialism and Liberation, Movement for a People=E2=80=99s Party or Corporate= Free Independents is a bad move.=20 =20 If we don=E2=80=99t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring = all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. O= pening our doors isn=E2=80=99t the danger... closing them is.=20 =20 On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche wrote: We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote: I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is cu= rrently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support s= uch a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an N= PP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement= . =20 Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragm= atism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variet= y of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from la= bor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that a= re party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates = (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only= in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way o= utweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuab= le, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality = of candidates we attract will be so high. =20 Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alterna= tive, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NO= T A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-author= itarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leni= nist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional sociali= st / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principle= s and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist lef= t ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological diff= erences. =20 Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove wr= ote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem= and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Soc= ialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictat= orship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P= &F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party = than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual poli= cy or on perception of viability. =20 I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People alread= y don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are runnin= g Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems ab= d Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" wrote: I agree withLinda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion eith= er!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is bet= ter able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila = wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn=E2=80=99t take corpora= te donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the ince= ntive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It=E2=80=99s hard = enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this= will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could = leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their ow= n selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small p= arty - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not gi= ve away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.=20 Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal o= n my own!=20 =20 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein=E2=80=99s previous emails stating the opin= ion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SG= A ballot, Michael=E2=80=99s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidate= s for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and= are supportive to the Green Party=E2=80=99s values and platform, items 144= through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candida= tes will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator =20 From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of GPCA = Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPC= A Endorsements for General Election Candidates =20 Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org =20 Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: =20 Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice VoteEndorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for Gener= al Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells= , Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time =20 Background=20 =20 The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candid= ates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA n= eeds visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lis= ts of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public = eye. The=20 ... [Message clipped] =20 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org= /cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes ------=_Part_20202_1645081513.1522540627977 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My words exactly, Victoria. These people are CLEARLY trying to= work WITH us, not against us. Why should we NOT help them, when there is n= o Green in the race? Are we for the change we are fighting for or are we fo= r the party, possibly to the detriment of the cause?



-----= Original Message-----
From: Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com>
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2018 1:58 pm
Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 15= 1, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway",
has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview: >>Where is our integrity? To me, integrity is suppo= rting progressives
who are already supporting us, like Gayle McLaughlin and the Peace &= Freedom
Party Of California, who have already endorsed Green Party candidates li= ke
Jason Kishineff for the June election. [...]

Content analysis details: (5.9 points, 5.0 required)

pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- -----------------------------------------------= ---
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail pr= ovider
(victronix01[at]gmail.com)
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (victronix01[at]gmail.com)
0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from a= uthor's
domain
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signa= ture
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessa= rily valid
0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay li= nes
5.5 KAM_STOCKTIP Email Contains Pump & Dump Stock Tip

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view
it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

=09
Attached Message
=09 =09=09=09 =09=09=09 =09=09=09 =09=09=09 =09=09=09 =09=09=09 =09=09=09 =09=09=09 =09=09 =09
FromVictoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com>
ToGPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
SubjectRe: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 &= amp; 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
DateSat, 31 Mar 2018 12:27:58 -0700
>>Where is our integrity?

To me, integrity is supporting progressives who are alread= y supporting us, like Gayle McLaughlin and the Peace &= Freedom Party Of California, who have already endorsed Green P= arty candidates like Jason Kishineff for the June election.

-- Victoria

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Nicole= Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>= wrote:
Thanks Linda! 

I agree with you, too! At a time when we are teetering in= to obscurity and towards the threat of losing ballot access, it seems irres= ponsible to be taking such a risk when there is no emergency which would dr= ive us to be so desperate.  We should be taking careful consideration = with the things you=E2=80=99ve mentioned specifically- what our potential e= ndorsees are doing and endorsing are a reflection of our stances and polici= es as well. And in an example of this playing out- if we endorse someone we= are referring voters to them. In turn, they refer voters to a candidate of= a corporate party, this hurts us! 

-N

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 9:37 AM <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
I agree with you, Nicole!

So, 155 proposes that we may endorse candidates who support Green values an= d who don't take corporate donations even if they are not registered Green.
Everyone seems to assume that automatically excludes endorsing a Democ= rat as they are a "corporate party."

But then, what if said independent candidate, endorsed by the Green Pa= rty, in turn endorses a Democrat instead of a Green?
Where is our integrity? How do we reconcile this inconsistency?  = Aren't we then indirectly endorsing a Democrat, a corporate party candidate= ?
What message does that send to left leaning voters?

Also, again, we Greens "give up" an endorsement to a non Green who in = turn does not reciprocate, but instead endorses a Democrat.
I don't see how that is building our Green Party, nor promoting our va= lues; in fact, it seems to do the opposite.

Linda
-----= Original Message-----
From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org&= gt;
Sent: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 15= 1, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Re Steve

I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and= straight-forward proposal. I=E2=80=99m not sure where the impression of = =E2=80=9Cfear=E2=80=9D comes from, as I=E2=80=99m using good old fashioned = logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of any= thing into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a tempor= ary circumstance. The arguments I=E2=80=99ve seen for it seem to be emotion= -based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes. 

The specific language is the part where the word, =E2=80= =9CGreen,=E2=80=9D disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green = Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels ar= e volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don=E2=80=99t know why = this is such a difficult concept to grasp. 

I=E2=80=99ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that d= uring the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us= to help good candidates in a way which doesn=E2=80=99t defeat our purpose = in being a legitimate political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbree= dlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception?  It = seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely wa= nt to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never= intended to be  our main objective and I don't believe it is written = as such.
On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmc= astorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven & others, 

What I=E2=80=99m saying is the proposal is asking to leav= e our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it=E2=80=99s our m= ain objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens= except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefr= ont because this is how we represent our party. We=E2=80=99re not a coaliti= on, we are a political party. 
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbre= edlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole. Right now We CAN  NOT make specific exceptio= ns for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it l= et us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the= door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level= . It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/d= emocratic decision. 
What in the language makes you think otherwise?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbr= oadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. A= nd it might even be in their ballot statement.



Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.= com> wrote:
There isn=E2=80=99t a piece of legislation or ball= ot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven=E2= =80=99t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our con= nections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective o= rganizing coalition.

The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with = others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.

That=E2=80=99s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
 
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gp= ca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes= @sfgreens.org>

Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, = 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Offic= e
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working o= n passing along with other parties right now? 
 
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportion= al Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?=
 
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to ch= ange our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly r= elated to Proportional Representation?
 
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related co= ncepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between= endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented t= hrough legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
 
-N
 
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <broo= kse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Repres= entation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much cl= oser solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a= much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like = proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other p= arties is too ad hoc and arm=E2=80=99s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
 
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gp= ca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes= @sfgreens.org>

Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, = 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Offic= e
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proport= ional representation to sell this proposal. 
 
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a = certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to= pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing= a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this be= cause such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation = like proportional representation. 
 
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement fo= r a People=E2=80=99s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends u= p turning into a =E2=80=9CMelting Pot=E2=80=9D of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is wh= y in regards to race relations, =E2=80=9CMulti-Culturalism,=E2=80=9D or =E2= =80=9CCultural Pluralism is better than =E2=80=9CMelting Pot=E2=80=9D becau= se of respect to diversity and differences.
 
 
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue= arises which we agree on. We don=E2=80=99t have to forfeit our unique part= y identity in the process.
 
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of th= e party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties. = ;
 
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specific= ally instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I=E2=80= =99ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it=E2=80=99s a good example of what w= e could propose.
 
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve = this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct polit= ical party. For this reason, I=E2=80=99m voting NO on this proposal.
 
-N
 
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <th= omleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
 
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exis= t, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral = reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "= left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the = means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence a= nd coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences = are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinc= t differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances= elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.&= nbsp;
 
I ran fo= r City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who consid= ers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, = with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context = where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state= violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctio= ns that make us unique.
 
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there i= s one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not do= zens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable i= nability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the gener= al American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membershi= p and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
 
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Gree= ns makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blu= r the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to no= t make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of polit= ical ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't= going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
 
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green = Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-st= atist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the = fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left d= oing so.
 
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg3= 4@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. =
 
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Corresponde= nce. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of r= oom for both. 
 
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to= grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Pro= portional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every s= tate. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist l= eft... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren=E2=80=99= t =E2=80=9CGreen Enough=E2=80=9D will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty syst= em(Proportional Representation)
 
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian =E2=80=9CI= =E2=80=99m better than you.=E2=80=9D arrogance... it=E2=80=99s not a good l= ook for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I=E2=80=99m with= you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Pro= gressive Independent Party, African People=E2=80=99s Socialist Party, Party= for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People=E2=80=99s Party or Cor= porate Free Independents is a bad move. 
 
If we don=E2=80=99t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System= to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest= threat. Opening our doors isn=E2=80=99t the danger... closing them is. 
 
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemen= asche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gma= il.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green,= who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to= support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate= ), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
 
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of polit= ical pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a br= oad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access = to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and res= erved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed i= n only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in= no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being th= at valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the= quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
 
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Sociali= st Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specific= ally IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideo= logically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We a= re never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to ru= n under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventio= nal statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine i= deological differences.
 
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <= srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an ima= ge problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independ= ent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form allia= nces. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather e= ndorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candida= te that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.  <= /div>
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. Peo= ple already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates = are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new co= ngress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsbe= rg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree= with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me = to write my opinion either!!  i have my own mind on these issues, but = sometimes someone else is better able to  articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn=E2=80=99t ta= ke corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilut= e the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It=E2=80=99s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green= Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not= even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt o= ur ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we= need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away t= he store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. 
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this = proposal on my own! 
 
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.= com> wrote:
Hi all,

In response to Michael Feinstein=E2=80=99s previous emails stating the opin= ion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SG= A ballot, Michael=E2=80=99s statements are incorrect.

Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidate= s for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and= are supportive to the Green Party=E2=80=99s values and platform, items 144= through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.<= br>
I hope this clears up any confusion.

Eric Brooks
SGA Vote Administrator
 
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gp= ca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM
To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendme= nt: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates<= /div>
 
P= lease send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<= /u>
&nbs= p;
Disc= ussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
 
Ranked Choice Vote ID #155
Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Can= didates
Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, L= aura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
Discussion  02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
Voting  03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
 
Background 
 
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endors= ing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: = the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one w= ay to get the Green Party name in the public eye.  The
...

[Message clipped]  
--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca= -votes@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-= bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes


--=20 gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vo= tes
------=_Part_20202_1645081513.1522540627977--