Green Party donations up ~1000% after Sanders endorsed Clinton

[Cecelia]

Meh, I mean you sort of took disparate views of a bunch different people and combined them into one boogeyman. I think you would benifit from balancing out where you get your news. Some of those positions, say eliminating food stamps come from fake news sources. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...inating-f/ I think you've created a bit of a straw-boogeyman, which of course Democrats use to try to show that there is this difference between them. Though some of what you said is definitely true the reality is that most of those are little held positions, or you are missing some major nuance in what is being said by Republicans. Or if you take the intelligent design thing, neither of the last two Republican presidential candidate, nor does Donald Trump believe that. Some Republicans in the midwest do. So at a national level, it's just not true. Yet you say They, as though it encompasses the whole group.

It's fine to be left wing, I tend that way myself on many things. But knowing your enemy, you should know what he's saying about himself, not just what other people say about him.

Republicans generally side on the side of limiting welfare (except for corporate welfare, which they're fine with because businesses are the "job creators" or so they say). 

There's a whole slew of problems with Donald Trump.  He may not support intelligent design being taught in schools himself, but he would certainly appoint judges that support intelligent design being taught.  Not to mention judges who don't think that same sex couples have a right to get married.  He's bounced back and forth on that issue, that nobody can really tell what he really thinks.  Republicans are also more likely to be able to push their agendas through congress and the senate with Trump as President.  

Women's Reproductive Rights  is one issue most Republicans do agree on.  Including Trump (who stated, but later took back, that women who abort should be punished.  Why did he say it in the first place if he didn't believe it?  Is he that disingenuous that he'd try to gain support by saying something he doesn't believe but knows could alienate women voters?).  I mean this is going by what Trump is saying.  Not what other people have said himself.  He's labeled himself as clearly anti-choice. 

He's also clearly pro-voucher.  Which is quite frightening considering that he ran Trump University--which was a massive failure, and a quick attempt to cash in on people wanting to earn an education.  It's absolutely frightening to think that he'd open elementary, middle, and high schools to such opportunities for people like himself.  Not to mention taking money away from our public schools, who unlike private schools can't turn away students.  To send to his big buddies who are salivating at the idea of duping parents just like he duped college students at Trump University.  To me that is absolutely unacceptable.  'Those high schools won't survive, just like Trump University didn't'.  Of course for those students who spend any amount of time there, will have wasted their time and money, not to mention resources, and won't be able to get any of that time back.  

It's also hard to tell where he stands on many issues, because he changes them rapidly.  Most politicians do flip and flop, but none in such rapid succession as Donald Trump does.  I mean Hillary has certainly flipped and flopped on issues.  So has Bernie Sanders, and pretty much everyone.  Changing their minds is a good idea, but Trump changes his mind on a whim.  But for the issues that I do know where he stands, (from his own mouth),

On social issues, liberals tend to be better than conservatives. But if the democrats want to win on these issues, they need to try harder. If Hillary wants the liberal vote, she'd best start pushing harder for liberal values. In a properly working society, people should vote on who they like more, and if they like the green party more, then they should vote for those people. And the more people vote for those candidates, the better those candidates will do in the future. We have more than two options, and we should take advantage of that.

The Green Party is still a ways off from being a viable political party.  We have two viable options at this point, like it or not.  Jill Stein won't even get to make it to the debates because rules are in place to ensure they don't.  Making the Green Party more viable is all well and good, but not at the expense of making everything else far worse.  The Green Party would be better off making roads in the house of representatives.  Get into local politics, and start making changes at the state level.  I know we've got a generation of people used to instant gratification.  But this kind of progress takes time.  Also I'd say Hillary has conceded quite a few platform points to more liberal points of view.  For example Hillary has pledged to put her weight behind an amendment ending Citizen's United.  That would be ABSOLUTELY huge.  Unfortunately that's a change that will likely have to happen in the court rather than by amendment.