Displaying 4 Forum Posts 
  • Mar 23, 2016 05:50 PM
    Last: 4yr
    2.1k
    I agree that elections in the US are interfered with so much that we would be lying if we used the word democracy to describe it. Today, Aljazeera ran an article about it titled What's Happening To American Democracy and the comments are exactly the same, people insisting that holding an election at all makes it a democratic society. China holds elections. North Korea holds elections. But that doesn't make them democracies. The American people are not well informed by their biased media sources. We have voter id laws that are designed to prevent certain groups of people from voting. We have two political parties whose candidates have the option of starting their campaigns with millions of dollars in publicly funded money, which is why third parties are nearly non-existent in the US. We have convoluted systems that gives reigning Democrats approximately 25% of the total number of delegates. The excuse they give for this is that they were elected in a previous election and therefore they should have the power to override the will of voters. They try to obscure that fact with legal rhetoric and political nonsense, but the simple fact is that this is not democracy, or anything similar to democracy. When Hillary gets a head start of at least 600 delegates, Bernie's campaign looks less legitimate before the campaign even begins. So he gets fewer donations and fewer votes. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that he will lose, and it is all because of our delegate system, and it is horribly corrupt. Any American who thinks we have a more fair electoral system than China is ignoring a lot of facts in order to hold that opinion. I will never vote for another Democrat until they allow real democracy to take place in their corrupt party.
  • Mar 23, 2016 05:50 PM
    Last: 4yr
    2.1k
    Mcsweet Wrote: Good post August Spies. I think Bernie Sanders is a wise man and has a basically altruistic impulse to leave something to the younger generations -- who don't even remember what a Democrat actually looked like before 1985. If HRC wins the nom I will not vote for her. I was going to, but I've decided at my ripe old age, I will no longer vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

    I have often been told that if I don't vote for a candidate who can win, then I am wasting my vote. A lot of people vote that way, and it is one of many reasons why we don't have real democracy in the US. Like you, I am also done voting for the lesser of two evils. When people vote for the lesser of two evils, they aren't really voting for a candidate at all; they are only voting against one. I think most of the many social and economic problems we have today are because for decades our country was run by the lesser of two evil instead of being run by someone who is competent enough to do the job. It seems like most Americans vote out of fear.

    Not voting for Hillary is the best way to express yourself politically this year (if you are a Bernie supporter). Some Bernie supporters will be voting Jill Stein with the Green party. It is not a waste of a vote; it is a political statement that will be heard loud and clear. In the general election, Hillary will be aware of the fact that many of Bernie's supporters do not think she is progressive enough. That will do two things: 1) push her further in a progressive direction, and 2) make her feel comfortable enough to implement progressive policies without fear that she is alienating too many voters.

    You can give Hillary permission to be the progressive president that she ought to be by not voting for her this year. She will win either way, but she will also have 2020 on her mind, and her approval rating, and Congressional midterm elections, etc. Your ballot is your chance to let her know where you want her to stand on the political spectrum for the next four years.

    Progressives generally do not have personality types that compete well in politics, and they need to learn how to be the squeaky wheel.
  • Mar 17, 2016 09:54 AM
    Last: 4yr
    1.3k

    I believe in socialism, but I think there would have to be huge changes in the US before it would work here. People's attitudes would need to change. In other words, they would need to be truly educated about economics and civics on a nationwide scale. Most Americans dismiss socialism as an idea that can't work because they saw the Soviet Union collapse and they think that proves that socialism can't work anywhere. But the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused by imperialism, not socialism. The Cold War and trying to dominate the planet destroyed the USSR. This is exactly what is destroying the US, but very few Americans can see that.

    I don't think it would be possible to implement socialism in the US for a very long time. American society is simply too huge to function as a socialist society. An economy becomes really hard to manage in a society of 320 million. Americans are so proud of their huge economy, but it doesn't benefit very many of them at all. Our GDP is the biggest in the world, but GDP only measures production. It does not measure people's income or their ability to survive, only how hard they are working and how much they are producing in dollars. GDP only looks at way that people's labor benefits corporations, but it has no regard for whether that system benefits the people or not. Living in a country with a high GDP is nothing to be proud of. But living in a country like Denmark is. How can the US become like Denmark? Not very easily.

    The transition to socialism (the main focus of most progressive political movements in Latin America) is very important. You can't just pull an economic system out from under everybody who is in the middle of living their lives and replace it with a new one. It has to be done step by step and in a very organized way. Something will have to be done with all the private property that should never have been private property in the first place. Should someone own the nation's banking, communications and transportation industries for their own personal profit? If not, then how will those assets find their way back into the public domain? In the past, oligarchs have started wars when their ownership of public services has been challenged. When you let a few people own the most necessary institutions in society, they will kill to protect the power and wealth that they receive from it. This is why capitalism is so dangerous, and it is also why it is so hard to change a society from being capitalist to being socialist.

  • Mar 23, 2016 05:50 PM
    Last: 4yr
    2.1k

    The Democratic establishment and the Clinton campaign are starting to urge Bernie to drop out. They say it is because Bernie can't win, but there are other, much more important reasons why they want him to drop out and why he shouldn't.

    Bernie's campaign is pushing Hillary's campaign further to the left, where she does not want to be. She is not a true progressive and it makes her campaign nervous when progressives push her beyond her comfort zone.

    Another reason they want Bernie to drop out is because his campaign reveals some very serious problems with the Democratic Party and its system of nominating candidates. If you take away the superdelegates, Bernie would be in the lead. The longer Bernie stays in the race, the more people will see how corrupt and undemocratic the superdelegate system is. The Democratic Party and the Hillary campaign don't want people to question that system more than they already have. Superdelegates will decide who the nominee is and that makes the Hillary campaign look less legitimate.

    Another reason why Bernie needs to stay in the race is to spread his message to more people.

    And polls still show that Bernie can beat Trump and Hillary can't. That could change over time, or maybe not.