I'm not big into posting politics here, given I'm a leftist and many of the posts here seem to be far-right, but coming from a non-biased position, I thought it might be interesting to talk the upcoming presidential election here in the USA.
On the Republican side, six candidates of moderate notability have announced:
1) Donald Trump
2) Nikki Haley
3) Vivek Ramaswamy
4) Perry Johnson (attempted to run for Governor of Michigan in 2022)
5) Corey Stapleton (former Montana Secretary of State)
6) Steve Laffey (former mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island; ran in the GOP primary in the 2006 Senate race in Rhode Island, losing to Lincoln Chafee)
Only two Democrats of potential note have officially announced:
1) Marianne Williamson
2) Jerome Segal (ran for president as the Bread and Roses nominee in 2020, and also ran in the Democratic primary for the 2022 Maryland gubernatorial race)
Naturally, if Biden formally announces, he's likely to sweep the primary (think Al Gore v Bill Bradley in 2000).
So far, no notable Green Party nominees have filed, though on the Libertarian side, a handful of nominees have announced:
1) Jacob Hornberger (ran in the 2020 Libertarian primary - front-runner for a while, but eventually lost to Jo Jorgensen)
2) Joe Exotic (likely a joke campaign, as I can't take this guy seriously; he has ran for president before, back in 2016, getting around 962 total votes)
3) Oliver Chase (hasn't announced, but did form an exploratory committee; ran in the Georgia US Senate race in 2022)
I have no idea how many US citizens frequent these boards, but thought it might be nice to see which candidates, if any, we're interested in.
And if I've missed any candidates that anyone out there has on their radar, I apologize beforehand.
That's a fair point. I didn't even list DeSantis as he's not officially announced yet. He'll definitely make the GOP primary a bit more interesting, should he run. Nikki Haley has nothing on DeSantis, I'd imagine, when it comes to conversative voters.
Why are leftists terrified of forums where they can't control the speech of the users?
Here's my analysis of 2024. It will be Trump vs Vote Blue No Matter Who(worst voting strategy ever btw), and the 3rd partys will be worthless as usual. The winner will be determined by whichever party harvests the most ballots. That's USA Banana Republic elections going forward...
🤡🌎
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
reply share
why the vicious attack on the polite , articulate , well formatted discussion proposal by a "leftist" ?
He came up with a well thought out , even handed , neutral ,unbiased post , even mentioning real Republican possibilities ...
... and you respond with the usual vitriolic shit we see on this page
p.s. If trump runs it will guarantee a democrat win due to 1) a lot of republicans being tired of his shit . It'll split the vote between trump fans and the next best independant. 2) democrats picking up a lot of "anything but truimp" votes , as you said
I don't think Trump can win either ... but the only way he might is if the Democrats fall down and decide they don't need to do anything for the people. I think that is an actual real danger.
> why the vicious attack on the polite , articulate , well formatted discussion proposal by a "leftist" ?
In case you haven't noticed in the last 20 years, that is all the Right-wing has to offer ... and to America's everlasting shame, that has been enough with the bolstering of BS from Fox News and money from the Right-wing think tanks and dirty tricks.
The only way the Right gets put in its place is to take away the massive advantage of money on the Right, and their whole propaganda brainwashing industry. I have no idea how that gets done.
Right-wingers eventually have to get that they are not going to benefit by the power and support they give to Conservatives and oligarch elites. They've lost for the last 50 years and still don't understand their opportunities.
Do you think there'd be a sizable defection of GOP supporters from Trump? Plenty of big names in 2016 didn't vote for Trump (including George Bush), but in the end, Trump was able to pull in enough people to make up for those losses. Evan McMullin, who some conversatives voted for over Trump, didn't do terribly - he got some solid results in Utah - but given Trump's low approval rating at the time, some suspect he'd have done better.
I think those who supported Trump throughout his presidency generally still support him now. Even if they don't, I don't know if they'd switch over to vote independent or third party in the fact of a Democratic win.
Just my thoughts of course. It's possible that I don't have a good hang on anti-Trump GOP members. I just suspect most would, as the phrase goes, "hold their nose" and vote for Trump if he turns out to be the nominee.
LMAO. That's how you all start out. It's a bullshit act. We've seen it play out many many times.
You literally proved my point how leftists can't handle a discussion forum they aren't in complete control of, speech wise. If you want a nice chat, go to the General Discussion board.
Vitrolic? Have seen the shit the fart-leftist trolls here spew out on the daily? Bruh. Please.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
”Here's my analysis of 2024. It will be Trump vs Vote Blue No Matter Who(worst voting strategy ever btw), and the 3rd partys will be worthless as usual. The winner will be determined by whichever party harvests the most ballots. That's USA Banana Republic elections going forward...
🤡🌎 “
Sadly this nailed it. If R’s pull off the victory, the Democrat media at ABCNNBCBS will report it as Putin rigged the election. If D’s win with 5000000000000 million votes, it was the most secure election in the history of our democracy.
reply share
Its a confirmed fact that Putin attempted to help donald in.
Its another confirmed fact that Donald won regardless
Its complete horseshit that donalds exit was rigged by hacked voting machines (hence the lawsuit) , dead people voting , Ninjas carrying suitcase of fake ballots in the middle of the night
and all the other fantastical imaginings that have been put forth by the nutjob rightards on the command of a Donalds lie .
You keep moaning you havent had your "investigation"
Where do you want it to start ?
"The secret nazi base on the moon" ?
It has nothing to do with being 'terrified' of forums with far-right posters. It's that I've seen plenty of discussions here that don't really seem in good faith (and it comes from both sides). I never meant to indicate that I want to control free speech - I just want to avoid any contentious arguments, as that's not why I'm here.
And I entirely agree with you that the VBNMW strategy is awful. I voted third party in both 2016 and 2020, and I heard the VBNMW argument pushed from so many Democratic voters.
It's my opinion that, if it weren't for Trump's response for COVID in 2020, he would have defeated Biden. If it's Biden running again for Democrats, and if Trump makes it through the GOP nominee (which I certainly think is likely), I wouldn't be surprised if Trump won.
I do think the total third party vote count will rise from the 2020 numbers, though. Probably not as high as they got in 2016, but Biden and Trump are both unpopular, which always lends to increased alternative candidate support.
Good luck with that, homie. The leftists are racist AF, and the righties put everyone on ignore. Good faith discussions just aren't really to be had here. Any thread that exposes any sides' hypocrisies are instant echo chambers.
As for the rest of the post... I agree with almost all of it. Hate to break it to ya man...you're not a leftist anymore. They bailed on you, like they did me. It's a hard thing to hear, and a bitter pill to swallow your team bailed on you without telling you...I know. But the good news is you don't have to "become" a conservative, or republican! There's this neat, new position...it's called Radical Centrism, and it's awesome. It confuses the hell out of everyone...and you can make so many more friends. 🤣
Embrace your centrism.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
reply share
The internet in general doesn't seem much a place for tempered conversation - speaking as someone who talked politics during the 2016 Democratic Primary on Twitter, Facebook, and some forums, it almost always got overly heated. Still, I like to think that, despite different viewpoints, people can have perfectly fine conversations about this stuff. I mean, if we can't talk to differing sides, then what's the point of political discourse at all?
I guess it depends on how you define 'leftist.' Personally speaking, I know I'm not a centrist, but independent would be a perfectly valid term, albeit a bit vague for my own personal use. I haven't voted Democratic since 2012, and only voted Republican once (in a very special case), and in general, don't see either of those two parties as the best way forward.
I'm a leftist, but I'm not here to talk about policy or get into issue-driven debates. I just wanted to talk about the upcoming election and the candidates running for it, as looking at elections, even without a dog in the race, is an interest of mine.
The only problem I see with Biden is this idiotic war. It needs to end ASAP and be forgotten by the United States of Amnesia as Gore Vidal used to say.
Democrats taking over as the war-mongering hawks is a very stupid idea, even if we are just paying Ukraine to self-destruct and throw egg all over Russia's face.
I think it would benefit everyone, including Biden, for Biden to have some opposition besides Marianne Williamson. Biden is a terrible public speaker, and a ton of garbage lies gets thrown at him daily from the Right that doesn't really get responded to.
Competition for Biden would more clearly define what the Democrats stand for, and also get Biden's accomplishments, which are pretty good, out there for discussion.
The constant claims of cognitive impairment are nonsense, though he is verbally impaired and not very charismatic, he is not morally impaired like the entire Republican party and the Right, and he knows more about all the issues than almost anyone in government.
But this Ukraine war has a been a costly morass for the entire world and has degraded America's image and repelled allies. China and Russia allying, Iran and Saudi Arabia getting closer. Alienating from Israel. South America sick of American meddling.
We need a refreshed vision, and Biden needs to prove he is the one who can do it, and if he can't we need someone who can.
I don't really care ... I am not saying that to further my own political ideology which is more Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren ( who I do not expect will run ), but to get Biden and his strengths or weaknesses our there in public before the people, and before the Republicans start showing up in the media taking up all the bandwidth. There needs to be continued debate on both sides .. but there really is very little debate on the Right, they are all in lockstep with the massively wealthy who pay for them.
To be completely fair, the massively wealthly are also behind plenty of Democrats. There's a reason that the establishment Democratic machine worked so hard to prop up Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020.
As someone who's not anywhere close to the right, I do wish I knew more of what was going on behind the typical GOP voter. I understand why Trump was able to bring in so many new people to the polls - some who haven't voted for years along with some who voted for Obama twice - but I'm curious about where the party goes in the next couple of elections.
If Trump becomes the nominee, and manages a win, I can only imagine Republicans in the vein of Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney will have an even harder time trying to turn the party back to their vision.
> To be completely fair, the massively wealthly are also behind plenty of Democrats.
Republican money is made to order corruption for Republicans.
Democratic money is to keep an opposition party from doing anything opposition.
The "establishment machine" is anything but Democratic, and both Clinton and Obama passed plenty of Right-wing legislation. Obama did not cancel the Bush tax cuts, and went from espousing Health Care reform to Health Insurance reform with no public option. Clinton got rid of welfare, and was dealing to cut social security and medicare as every year the military budget keeps growing and growing. Both sides are corrupt, but the opportunity for change is possibe with the Democrats because there are actually a few Democrats with an actual vision.
In terms of your comment, what you imply is anything but correct or fair.
In CA we had a statewide universal health care measure which legislators were told if they voted for the money people would not be there for them in the next election. That is what we get when Conservative billionaire money controls both sides of the political system - and the media to boot.
Republicans depend on the ignorance of Republican voters, and their isolation from the facts and exposure to Republican lies. Story after story, year after year it's the same thing. Just like every time we get into another war, the propganda goes out, the opposition voices are muffled, and it sounds like everyone is rallying behind the President.
Trump may become the nominee, but unless Biden flubs up, or lets this BS war get out of hand he is extremely unlikely to win - assuming an actual fair election. Then if the Right-wing media lies can scare the public again Trump might get a boost. That's why it can only be a good thing for Biden to have to debate and show up in front of the public.
That's what Clinton's campaign thought in 2016 (along with candidates like Ben Carson and Ted Cruz), so while certainly a possibility, I'd also recommend you keep in mind the risks.
That a fair speculation, but the country knows a bit more about Trump today than it did when he was able to lie to everyone, or switch his answers from day to day or hour to hour. The key almost always hinges on Democratic turnout.
No doubt this is true, but propping up far-right opponents with the idea that they're the easiest to defeat always struck me as a problematic strategy.
That said, I'm not a Democrat, so if Democratic voters want to do that, that's their business.
The only people I've ever heard feel they have to make this public statement that they are not Democrats, are Republicans. They often post under the claim that they are asking independent neutral questions.
So, forget who you are, because we know you are not non-partisan, who do you vote for? Who did you vote for in the Presidential elections from 2000 on?
I share your skepticism about propping up candidates that one think can never win, but has been done before successfully. I'd say it is a risk, but also not the way the game is supposed to be played, but today everyone cheats and tries to find outside methods to manipulate voters.
I first voted in 2012, when I voted for Obama. In 2016, I voted for Jill Stein. In 2020, I voted for Howie Hawkins.
Both the 2016 and 2020 votes were write-ins, as I live in Indiana, and it has rather atrocious ballot access.
My point with my statement was that I'm not a Democrat, so I don't think I should have much say in what Democrats want out of their nominee (same with Republicans, Libertarians, what have you).
> In 2016, I voted for Jill Stein. In 2020, I voted for Howie Hawkins.
Repeated third party votes tell me you don't understand the microscopic nature of our power as American voters, especially in present times with razor margins.
The rules say you can vote in the Democratic or Republican primary depending on your state and how they structure their primaries. So you may express your opinion how you like.
Really the only thing that maximizes our negligible power as voters is to vote for who you like in the primary - unless it is close, then you have to vote one side or the other of the two major candidates. In the election you only have power to vote for one candidate or the other. This translates mostly for Americans as voting against the candidate you dislike the most.
I'd put an addendum on my last statement though because Republicans perform many more dirty tricks than Democrats. In the last election the massive denial of the election, and the assault by Republicans on the government took the cake. That's like pulling a gun at a poker game and making off with the pot because you accused someone of cheating with no evidence.
It's a simple matter of disagreement, then, which, as someone who advocates for third parties, I'm certainly not new to.
To put a blanket state over all repeated third party voters as "they don't understand their power as voters," in my opinion, does a disservice to the millions of Americans who are sick and tired, rightfully so, of the two-party system. Naturally, you may disagree, and that's fine, but people have the right to vote Democratic or Republican if they want to, just as they have the right to vote otherwise.
I never understood how voting third party sometimes isn't seen as a show of power.
Imagine if a third party candidate got 11% of the total vote. Sure, the Democrat or Republican still wins, but ignoring that 11%, or saying that the candidate in question didn't have a realistic chance to win, isn't properly tackling the issue.
Increasted third party or independent voting shares would definitely have the ability to send a message to the major parties that people are tired. Whether the parties would care to listen or not, and whether the media would cover third party and independent voters with any respect whatsoever, is entirely another question, no doubt about that.
Republicans are atrocious when it comes to voting rights, no doubt there. Democrats aren't amazing either - they restrict people's abilities to vote for the candidate they want to vote for, which is fundamentally anti-democratic. (Which is, of course, in reference to the Democratic Party using lawsuits to remove the Green Party from multiple ballots over the years).
I don't have a problem saying Republicans are worse on the issue, but it's not like the Democrats are shining examples of the right way to approach voter rights.
Of course, I entirely disagree with you when it comes to your take on third party voters (and this is, on a side-note, why my original post didn't focus just on Republicans and Democrats, but on the Libertarian Party also), but it's an honest difference in views
Not reading that. I know you third party people are passionate about your boutique politicians, but it's a cold-hard mathematical fact that you are wrong.
I don't blame you for sticking to your guns, and I can agree that's not the point of the thread, but naturally, you think I'm wrong, and I think I'm not. If we can't have an actual discussion about it, then so be it, but I think that's a shame.
You have your opinion, and I respect that. A lot of people think 3rd parties are just like another TV channel or another flavor of ice cream; and what you are giving up by voting 3rd party is almost insignificant, but statistically you are wrong.
But there is no real reason to argue about it. When you add up millions of people doing that, it got Bush elected in 2000 which arguably changed the world and the American economy massively for the worse. Similar thing with Trump, but no so much 3rd party.
It made Republicans crazy in that Ross Perot kept Bush from being re-elected because Repubicans defeceted to vote for Perot and it got Clinton elected.
What is there really to discuss. I stuck with the facts and agreed you have the right to do it. What else can you say? Can you give me a good reason for voting 3rd party in the real election?
Are you here to try to convince voters on one side or the other to vote 3rd party?
I was just here to talk the 2024 presidential candidates. I know my own views are controversial, and I've no interest in pushing them on others.
If someone wants to vote Democratic, that's their right. If someone wants to vote GOP, that's their right. Same with Libertarian, Green, etc., etc. In relation to 2016, I know plenty of people who I respect that voted for Clinton, for instance. There are some whom I respect that went Trump, some who went Johnson, some who just sat out altogether. It's all an individual choice, and I respect people's rights to make those choices.
So in short, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. I just wanted to shine a light on the various candidates from the various parties running, because I personally find it interesting, and thought others may be interested to, from Democrats/Republicans to those who support other parties (Libertarians, Constitution Party members, what have you).
OK, but my only point is that people who vote 3rd party have a chance to shoot their political values in the foot by doing so.
You can do whatever you want. But, if you agree more with Republicans or Democrats, even if you agree 100% with some other marginal whacko candidate, you are being more true to your values by voting for the major party. Add to that no one sees or cares if you vote 3rd party.
If people do it to express their identity, I'd just say, that is not the purpose of voting. Voting is about expressing your political interest where it can do the most good.
If the most good for you is to be aloof and spend your vote expressing disdaiin for the major parties, I'm with your emotionally, but that is not the way I chose to spend my vote. The difference however is on the order of 1 / 3.5 x 10^8.
I understand your viewpoints. Believe me, I spoke with a lot of people in 2015 when I said I wasn't voting for Clinton, and I spoke with a lot of people in 2019 when I told people I wasn't voting for Biden.
I'll be happy to have a discussion about this, because I think people very much see and care about third party votes, especially in close elections. Look at how Nader voters and Stein voters are blamed for Republican presidents. Democrats definitely cared, and I definitely think people see and care about those third party and independent voters.
It all comes down to strategy (not emotion, at least in my case). Strategically, in my opinion, decades of the "lesser of two evils" argument led directly to a Clinton vs. Trump situation, two highly unpopular candidates, and if we keep doing it, nothing will ever get better.
By no means do I think those who disagree are foolish, because it's a simple difference in strategy. I vote the way I think is best for this country and this world, and I imagine that's exactly how most people vote.
> Look at how Nader voters and Stein voters are blamed for Republican presidents. Democrats definitely cared, and I definitely think people see and care about those third party and independent voters.
Yeah, not understanding the realities of voting in America works to go 180 degrees opposite to what the majority of people want in almost all cases.
It really doesn't matter, because there is not a chance in hell that the GOP candidate could ever win my state...I would also add that if Bernie Sanders were to be running in the primary I would choose the D ballot and vote for him!
I didn't have any individual poster in mind. It's just that I see plenty of arguments about how "woke" some movies are, for instance, and many of these don't seem to be much interestered in an actual exchange of ideas.
However, I may be entirely off base - like I said, I haven't participated in this Politics board before, so perhaps it's a more even distribution of GOP/Democrats/independent conversatives/independent leftists/etc. that I previously thought, so this may just be my ignorance.
Maybe the movies are woke. Whats wrong with stating an opinion? Just because a person says a movie is woke doesn't make them far-right. It seems you are unfairly judging people on a internet chat site.
I never said anything was wrong with stating an opinion. Perhaps the problem, as you say, is my perception that many of the people who use "woke" as a negative are also more inclined to be politically far-right.
In which case, I'd now apologize for that potential misconception.
My main point with the beginning of the thread was to be forthcoming - I'm a leftist, and I didn't want to give the wrong impression to anyone - and that because of my preconceptions, I hadn't posted here. Naturally, either I phrased the thought poorly or shouldn't have had the thought at all, but there you are.
"many of the people who use "woke" as a negative are also more inclined to be politically far-right."
I see you doubled down on a false statement.
Why would a non-biased person say "many of the posts here seem to be far-right"
Some common synonyms of unbiased are dispassionate, equitable, fair, impartial, just, and objective. While all these words mean "free from favor toward either or any side," unbiased implies even more strongly an absence of all prejudice.
I never said I didn't have my own biases, and to be entirely honest, I don't think it's largely relevant to the thread.
When I said "non-biased," I meant, in this context, "non-biased in terms of candidates." I'm not a Republican, so I have no bias when it comes to the GOP nominees. I'm not a Democrat, so I have no bias when it comes to the Democratic nominees. I'm also not a member of any third party.
My point was, I have, so far, no dog in this race, and thought it might be fun, not to mention interesting, to discuss who people are looking forward to in terms of the presidential primaries. If I failed to get that message across, that's on me, and I apologize.
People who have political views can discuss things in a non-biased manner, which I've think I've been doing in terms of the candidates who have announced (aside from a jibe at Joe Exotic, but as he was censured by the Libertarian Party during his 2018 run for Oklahoma governor, I don't think he has the interests of the Libertarian Party in mind).
In short - "non-biased" was in reference to speaking about the candidates and the primaries. I never meant to indicate I, myself, don't have biases, and that was in specific reference to my own background, which I wanted to disclose before going into the topic at hand.
Again, that was my short-coming, but I honestly don't see the relevance, unless you think I've unfairly maligned a canidate who is currently running for president.
What did I lose? I listed the six candidates who have announced a run in the GOP primary who I think people may know.
No doubt some are higher-profile names, such as Trump and Nikki Haley, but all of them have either held elected position, ran for high offices, or have a significant personal income (which as we saw with Michael Bloomberg in the 2020 Democratic Primary, doesn't always amount to much, but is still worth consideration).
"many of the people who use "woke" as a negative are also more inclined to be politically far-right."
I see you doubled down on a false statement.
Why would a non-biased person say "many of the posts here seem to be far-right"
Some common synonyms of unbiased are dispassionate, equitable, fair, impartial, just, and objective. While all these words mean "free from favor toward either or any side," unbiased implies even more strongly an absence of all prejudice.
A non-biased person would be impartial.
What the hell are you talking about?
noting that posts seems "far right" does not make you biased if those posts are far right
it does not even make you biased if they are "far left" , it makes you wrong - but still not biased
"un biased" does not mean never percieving or describing anything.
To simplify the example...
imagine theres a room with 10 people , 8 wearing blue coats and 2 wearing red.
if JigsawX says "most of these people are wearing blue coats" this does not make him biased!
I have noticed that most posters here are antifa liberals that hate America want to Xi as their leader but coming from a non-biased position, I thought it would be interesting to talk about how democrats want to destroy America from the inside. Please note that I am conservative with unbiased opinions.
I'm one of the most vocal anti-Wokies on this site, and I'm on the far left (socialist).
My hobby is slaying woke retards on the internet for sport, all the while championing a 21st century brand of socialism rooted in American values. I've made numerous posts, where I have expounded on the intricacies of Marxism, socialism, and capitalism, as well as provided comprehensive insights into the socialistic policies I endorse, their operational mechanics, and the strategies required for their successful implementation.
And like you, I always vote green (except in 2008 when I voted for Obama).
So as the old saying goes: Don't judge a book by its cover
That's very true, and that's something I need to work on. My political circles aren't much into "wokeness" either - generally, that's something I see from liberals/Democrats, not leftist/socialists/communists.
Definitely appreciate the comment, because it shows a shortcoming of my own that I need re-evaluate.
You are correct, it is a common misconception, especially on the right, that leftists/socialists/communists are woke, but it's not true, as you've said, it is mostly liberals/Democrats. While many people view liberals and Democrats as part of the left, they are more accurately described as the "boutique left," a term coined by Chris Hedges. Rather than focusing on concrete policies that improve the material conditions of working-class people, they tend to prioritize identity politics and cultural issues. This is in contrast to genuine leftists, such as socialists and communists, who recognize that identity politics only creates division and that solidarity among the working class is necessary to achieve shared goals. Wokies are too insular, tribal, and toxic to effectively stand in solidarity with the working class and advance leftist values. And that is why as a leftist, I hate Wokies as much, if not more, than the right. It is why slaying woke retards on the internet for sport is my favorite pastime. In my opinion, the Wokerati are an obstacle to class solidarity, and for that reason I wish to purge them and their pernicious ideology from our culture. I want them pushed out to the fringes of society where they belong, back to some dark corner of the racial/gender studies department of academia, never to be seen or heard from again.
Oh, and don't beat yourself up about your shortcomings. You're fine. We all have them.
Case in point, as far as misconceptions go, I live in a conservative area of Indiana, and a guy at my previous workplace was of the belief that "all Democrats were socialists."
I've heard that type of thing before, of course, but in truth, I'd never heard it in person, so I was interested in talking to him about it.
I let him know that I was, in fact, a socialist, but I didn't vote for Democrats, as they are a capitalist party. I also spoke to him about the various socialist parties across the country (SEP, SWP, FSP, SPUSA, WWP, PSL, Socialist Action, and Socialist Alternative), and went with the question of why were there so many if they could just get their socialist fixes from Democrats.
In the end, I don't think much of what I was going for got through to him, but he also consumed Infowars and the Blaze, so it'd take far more persuasive people than me to explain his inaccurate misconceptions to him.
There is nothing more frustrating than hearing right wingers refer to a neoliberal parasite like Biden as a communist. He and the Democratic Party represent the antithesis of communism and socialism. Unfortunately, the negative connotations associated with these ideologies have been ingrained in society through a century of anti-communist propaganda. For many people, the term "communism" is just synonymous with authoritarianism. Additionally, the anti-government rhetoric during the Reagan era have created a culture of fear and resistance towards any attempts to improve society.
What's sad is that many right wingers actually support many socialist policies but only if you don't tell them that they are socialist policies. Thanks to this propaganda, you have people who are literally working against their own interests. I got to give it to the oligarchs, they sure know how to play the game. We are in a class war and they've won by convincing the working class to play for their side.
Yeah, that Red Scare, both in the 1920's and 1950-1960's, is certainly still applicable. It's hard to break people out of mindsets after decades and decades of propaganda, and like you said, that's damn sad.
Well, we just have to keep trying. It's up to people like us to educate as many people as possible and help bring the working class together. It's not going to be easy, it is a class struggle after all.
Oh, and in relation to additional parties, apparently the Prohibition Party will have their national presidential convention in day, apparently in Buffalo, New York.
The Prohibition Party Party, as one can imagine, hasn't garnered many votes in multiple decades.
In 2008, their nominee Gene Amondson got just 655 votes (almost 300 of which came from Louisiana).
In 2012, Jack Fellure got 518 votes (which came entirely from Louisiana).
In 2016, James Hedges got 5,617 votes (4,700 of which came from Arkansas).
In 2020, due to some ballot issues, there were sort of two Prohibition candidates, being Phil Collins and C.L. Gammon. If you total up their votes, it comes to 6,333 votes.
No doubt it's a small party, but their also one of the oldest political parties in the country, so I'm sort of curious as to not who they nominate, but how hard they'll attempt to get ballot access.
Just found out about twenty minutes ago that there is someone running for the Prohibition Party, being Zack Kusnir (or perhaps better known as Zack Strength).
I've never heard of this guy before, but apparently he's a former football player, so that alone will likely get him a little more recognition. If he's the nominee, he certainly would have a different feel from the previous nominees.
I think it'll just be another clown show with Biden being handed the election on a silver platter again, giving a slurred, drunken-sounding speech to no crowds at all, and a tiny group of his handlers and friends in attendance surrounded by barbed wire.
I imagine once Biden announced, assuming he does, that's largely exactly what will happen. I find it sort of interesting he hasn't announced yet, but he certainly has time and the backing of the Democratic Party to wait.
Naturally, it's damn depressing. Truth be told, I've not had much in the way of hope regarding electoral politics for years, but I still like to think somehow things can get better sometime in the future.