Talk:Green Mountain Peace and Justice Party

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Politics: American / Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Vermont Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Vermont portal This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

"...and the party has endorsed other candidates and party in other election." If that were a law, it would be "unconsitutionally vague". I deleted it as adding nothing to the article. It is covered by the statement that it picks its presidential nominee by endorsing one of the national leftist ones. I'll try to make it clearer. Rlquall 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts With Her Running Mate

Could someone elaborate, this statement is very vague. I am curious though why the Liberty Union Party endorsed the Worker World Party (Stalinism doesn't seem like a compatible substitute for nonviolent democratic socialism), especially when one of their most active members was running for President nationally. I knew there were some issues over Walt Brown's stance on abortion, but other than that I didn't know of any problems. Is that what the conflict was over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChipMD (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Positions missing

Since this seems to be a solidly ideological party, there really should be some listing of its specific positions on issues. It's not enough just to characterize it as "Left-Wing-to-Far-Left" or "Socialist," since those terms cover a wide spectrum of ideologies. Surely there are Liberty Union official publications, platforms, statements of principles or goals, position papers, candidate statements or the like. Can't the entry have a paragraph describing the specific aims of the party as expressed in those - particularly important now, since one of its former candidates is a serious contender for the Presidency, and there is great public interest in his career. 72.179.43.174 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders Barely Mentioned

Sen. Sanders is surely the most widely-known person ever to have been an active Liberty Union member and apparently one of its most successful candidates. I would think he deserves his own paragraph, with some details of his 1974 Gubernatorial and 1976 Senatorial races - at very least the same information that is in his Wikipedia entry (assuming it is accurate).

I don't feel comfortable editing this entry because of my lack of contextual knowledge of the subject, but if nobody comes up with a good reason not to, I feel inclined to reformat it with a separate paragraph for Sanders, simply importing the wording from the Sanders entry into this one. 72.179.43.174 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diamondstone and firearms

Hi Vif12vf, I notice that you've restored the statement, "Diamondstone further clarified that such firearms, in the hands of the people, is important as it may become necessary for the citizens to revolt in order to overthrow the capitalist order (and replace it with a socialist society)." Given that there is no reference for the entire paragraph, that and the statement above it, "Diamondstone, on the Vermont Public Radio senatorial debate, stated that while the Liberty Union Party is a non-violent party, it is important for Vermonters to retain the right to possess firearms", probably shouldn't be there either, until a citation is found. The election results further up are easier to verify with a little footwork. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic socialist?

The party platform does not use the term "democratic socialist". It calls itself a "non-violent socialist party" and states that "Democracy must exist at all times in all the processes of society". This adds up to democratic socialism, but is it not WP:SYNTHESIS to draw a conclusion, not supported by sources? I will pause before striking the term "democratic socialist". Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]