Next US President?

[Dunenewt]

Ron Paul is a libertarian, no?  From what I've heard, he would basically bring anarchy to the US.

[Dante]

It is a sad state of affairs when people are so willing to support anyone opposed to the status quo just because he might shake things up a bit - no matter how reactionary or insane his policies.

No, Edric. A sad state of affairs is when you and I are actually supporting the same presidential candidate for similar reasons.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Dunenewt]

Wait, you're both going for Clinton...oh no.

Could someone convert this into a poll, so we could vote on who we'd want?

[Anathema]

Edric, would you have supported Edwards if he was still running?

[Edric O]

I've added a poll, as Dunenewt suggested. Vote away! :)

[Edric O]

No, Edric. A sad state of affairs is when you and I are actually supporting the same presidential candidate for similar reasons.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I don't support Hillary Clinton, I oppose her less than I oppose the other two. Like I said before, "all three current front-runners would make horrible presidents, but some are worse than others."

I mean, I don't even support your average European social democrats because I think they are too capitalistic. I would never support or vote for a liberal like Clinton. If I were an American citizen, I would vote for one of those obscure socialist candidates with no chance of winning.

Edric, would you have supported Edwards if he was still running?

Not support, no, but I would consider him the least bad of the candidates. He was preferable to Clinton and Obama...

[Andrew]

I don't support Hillary Clinton, I oppose her less If I were an American citizen, I would vote for one of those obscure socialist candidates with no chance of winning.

Not support, no, but I would consider him the least bad of the candidates. He was preferable to Clinton and Obama...

In canada we have a communist party. Would you vote for them (Or I guess the US version)?

http://www.communist-party.ca/

Early in the last election vote count they were actually in the lead for about 15 minutes in one district. Made for some comical commentary.

Seems there is a US communist party as well. http://www.cpusa.org/

[jeff2429]

Mike Huckabee is still in the running and don't forget, he is Chuck Norris approved.

[Dunenewt]

The poll images aren't appearing for me.

[nemafakei]

"In canada we have a communist party"

Hehe.

We have at least two communist parties: the Communist Party of Britain - Stalinists who produce the "Morning Star", and the Communist Party of Great Britain - reformed Stalinists produce the "Weekly Worker". We also have the Socialist Party (Trotskyists, "The Socialist"), the Socialist Party of Great Britain (Anti-Leninists), the Scottish Socialist Party (Broad party which includes Trots, "Scottish Socialist Voice"), the Socialist Workers' Party (More Trotskyists, "Socialist Worker"), the Socialist Labour Party (Wannabe Stalinists), not to mention a number of coalition-cum-parties: Respect (Aforementioned SWP), Respect Renewal (George Galloway; Split from Respect, "Respect"), Solidarity (Involving the Scottish branches of the SWP and the SP; Split from the SSP).

That's not to mention the groups and tendencies that don't call themselves parties: Alliance for Workers' Liberty (Trots, "Solidarity"), Socialist Action (Don't even ask, "Socialist Action"), the Workers' Revolutionary Party (Trots? "The News Line", I think)...

Oh, and there are a load more in Northern Ireland as well.

Picking between Obama, McCain and Hilary is for us lefties like making liberals and other right wingers pick who to support between, e.g. the CPB, CPGB, and SWP. Except that there's a much wider choice on the left.

[Anathema]

Actually a number of conservative Americans that I know online aren't very happy with McCain's apparent victory. Most of them would have preferred Thompson, but he never stood that much of a chance. A lot of them (conservative republicans) are going to sit this election out unless McCain picks a more palatable VP and preliminary cabinet. I've even heard some of them say that they'd seriously consider voting for Clinton instead because they think she's tougher on foreign policy.

Incidentally, most of them think Huckabee is an idiot.

[Andrew]

Nader Announces New Run for President

This should make it more interesting.

[Dunenewt]

Nader does make quite a bit of sense, but still he's not going to get anywhere.  This sums it up best for me:

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, speaking shortly before Nader's announcement, said Nader's past runs have shown that he usually pulls votes from the Democrat. "So naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.

[Sneakgab]

Maybe ''abstain'' should be one of the poll options :P ;D Though I suppose voting for some left-wing candidate with no chance of winning would effectively be doing that, except such a person may be making a point at the same time (or supporting something much closer to his ideals).

I guess most people would rather put their vote somewhere where it could actually possible make a small positive difference (Obama or Clinton slightly better than the other choices) than vote for a party that is much closer to what they actually support.

Hmmm, ever wondered how many votes are possibly gained or lost like this? Perhaps there are enough supporters of some ''hopeless'' left-wing party for it to actually win, but they all vote on the regulars because they think no one would vote for said party. Unlikely I know; Most of the mindless masses will vote for their usual regulars without fail.

Nema Fakei, what is it that prevents these various socialist and communist parties from merging? I suppose the scot socialist parties probably have independence issues they don't agree on with the other socialists, but isn't their socialist agenda more important to them? I guess I can see why the socialists and communists wouldn't merge but couldn't they at least unite into two different parties?

I think that if all the socialist parties in Britain merged, that could help people view them as a serious party. Even if the merge excl the scottish and communist parties, that probably wouldn't matter much as anyone with socialist interests would vote for this new socialist party even if it did not co-incide with his ideals the most, for the same reason Edrico would vote for Obama in spite of his ideals. However, the case would be much better as this socialist party would be far closer to the socialists ideals than a regular, and would have a far greater chance of winning that you're typical socialist party. Of course, it may lack the support of scottish socialists, but they would possibly be prepared to put their social interests before their independence interests.

Is it just minor differences in ideology (as compared to differences btw a typical capitalist party and a socialist one) that seperate these parties, or are there other things that prevent them from coalescing?

[nemafakei]

"Hmmm, ever wondered how many votes are possibly gained or lost like this? Perhaps there are enough supporters of some ''hopeless'' left-wing party for it to actually win, but they all vote on the regulars because they think no one would vote for said party. Unlikely I know; Most of the mindless masses will vote for their usual regulars without fail."

The left sometimes loses out on seats because of divisions. It would take time to re-energise the abstaining working-class voters, mind.

"Nema Fakei, what is it that prevents these various socialist and communist parties from merging?"

Their leaderships all hate each other, and most of the groups believe that they are the one true party. There are some serious differences, but not enough that would stop most of them uniting under a common banner as well as retaining some differences in position. I'd say the differences are small enough that there's no point fighting over them until the left has near enough a majority in parliament. By which time,

"I guess most people would rather put their vote somewhere where it could actually possible make a small positive difference (Obama or Clinton slightly better than the other choices) than vote for a party that is much closer to what they actually support."

Actually, sometimes voting for a left wing party/candidate you know won't win can have a more positive effect than voting for a not-so-right-wing candidate that might win. First, because you're increasing their momentum and their ability to secure broadcasts etc. Second, because you're forcing the second preference to move left to accommodate your vote. The Green Party of England and Wales has managed to do a lot without winning a single FPTP seat - they win votes other parties want, so other parties focus more on being green in order to capture those votes.

[Dunenewt]

Who else voted for McCain apart from me?

[SpiceGuid]

Mike Huckabee is still in the running and don't forget, he is Chuck Norris approved.

Sarkozy was Tom Cruise certified, plus now he's also Arnold approved.

And never forget: Sarkozy promised the change.

And he did.

He changed wife.

[Sneakgab]

''Their leaderships all hate each other, and most of the groups believe that they are the one true party.''

How did that happen?

''There are some serious differences,''

Do you mean as in the fact they hate each other, or why they hate each other, or are you reffering to other differences (ie: differences in ideals)?.

I wonder if it is possible to increase these parties' disposition towards each other so as to allow a merger. This would be the first political step for any socialist party. Even without the idea of not voting for a party because no one else will with everyone following said idea, the socialist parties would still be hopeless split as they are, unless one of them comes to the fore-front as the ''main'' socialist party. This seems unlikely since govterment and large business owners would influence the media to prevent this (perhaps by giving more broadcasts to smaller parties).

The only hope for an election where one does not have to choose to be ruled by the lesser of a two or three evils which still agrees little with his own visions of govt lies in a united front of socialists. If socialists were ever to win an election, then I imagine the regular referendums and disagreement btw the members of this united party would allow some control from the population during the term (which seems pretty much minimized in most countries. USA is a good example: Bush declares war on Iraq. Poll held. War is not supported by majority. Was goes forward. Poll held. BUSH is not supported by majority. Bush remains presidents.).

Also, with a sufficient lead, the party would fracture into two or three parties who would then become the ''main'', ''regular'' parties (much like the democrats and replubicans of today) of the day, giving people further freedom to ''fine tune'' their govterment to their wishes with their votes.

With exploitation becoming more blatant and severe, one imagines that this is one of the best times for socialists to score some points. In the future, more will be done by govt and the oligarchy to cover up their exploitation (going overseas for cheap labor rather than reducing minimum wages locally was an example of a step to do this. Obviously their were other motivations as well though: simply wanting hassle free cheap labour) and to brainwash people with rhetoric and propoganda.

It may be that the socialists need to get their @$$e$ in gear very soon.

[SpiceGuid]

I wonder if it is possible to increase these parties' disposition towards each other so as to allow a merger.

Do you seriously mean Lenin and Blair in the same party ?

[Anathema]

Who else voted for McCain apart from me?

I think it was Nema, but of course he would never admit it.

[Sneakgab]

Is there a Lenin in british politics? If you're reffering to Lenin of the Bolsheviks and Blair, primi minister of Britain, then I have know idea whst you're going on about.

[Dunenewt]

We have three main parties Conservatives (my personal favourite), Liberal Democrats, and the Labour party.  Then we have a few others that never get more than 5% (apart from in the European elections), such as United Kingdom Independence Party, Green Party...umm *shudders* Respect?

[nemafakei]

"umm *shudders* Respect?"

See above - we've got two Respects at least.

And some of the smaller groups (SSP, Sol, SWP-Respect, Respect v.2.0, Greens, SP, Greens, all sorts of nationalist groups, the "Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern", and so on) have or have had seats on local councils (won by majority or plurality), as well as the Welsh/Scottish Assemblies (won by Proportional Representation).

[Anathema]

(George Galloway; Split from Respect' date=' "Respect"), [/quote']

Is that the guy who publicly embarrassed the US senate and then proceeded to make a fool out of himself in Big Brother?

[nemafakei]

"Is that the guy who publicly embarrassed the US senate and then proceeded to make a fool out of himself in Big Brother?"

Yep. Also known for "saluting the indefatigability" of Saddam Hussein. (He now claims to have been saluting "the Iraqi people"). And for being kicked out of the Labour Party. And for having his constituency dissolved by the Boundaries Commission. Twice.