MovieChat Forums > JigsawX > Replies
JigsawX's Replies
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.
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).
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.
I didn't care for his comments or campaign strategy (refused to compete in swing states as to not hurt the Democratic Party), but he certainly has some leftist credibility (though does now possess a VBNMW viewpoint).
Angling for a VP spot isn't a bad idea, but given his less-than-nothing name recognition for most people, and the fact he ran as a third party candidate in 2020 (even if he didn't compete in swing states, I have to imagine most Democrats wouldn't think much of his loyality), I'd think Williamson, should she somehow find herself to be in the position to choose a VP, could find better options.
Like you said, though, in most cases, the DNC won't let her anywhere near the presidency.
I think in a case like that, they might try and put Harris in Biden's place. I can't imagine too many Democrats would be excited about Harris near as much as Biden, but being his VP does give some clout.
Technically, there is another candidate of minor note, being Jerome Segal (who also run in the Democratic primary for Maryland's Governor in 2022, along with running for president in 2020 under the Bread and Roses Party, which he has since disbanded).
Though it's unlikely he'll ever amount to much in terms of polling, remember that Lawrence Lessig did technically get the poll totals he needed to in order to be on the debate stage back in 2016 (along with O'Malley, Clinton, Sanders, Webb, and Chafee), but the DNC pretty much shot him down without good reason (there's a shock), which pretty much ended Lessig's campaign. I think the same happened to Mike Gravel in 2020's Democratic primary, but I can't swear to it.
With that in mind, I don't think it's impossible that Segal could replicate that, but I also think it's fair to say that no matter how the Democratic primaries go, if Biden announces, he's a pretty sure shot (again, provided his health doesn't fail him).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
Don't disagree with your last statement, though.
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.
How Green Was My Valley for 9, I'd guess.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.