View Full Version : election in youre country - talk about elections
smoer
27th April 2003, 11:43
when are the elections in youre country??
WHo you think is gonna win and for who you wish to vote??
i'm from belgium and the elections are on 18may2003 and i wish SP.A or PvDa would win
hoffer
27th April 2003, 16:56
leve de pvda
Umoja
27th April 2003, 17:13
Republicans are gonna win. Democrats are still masturbating to the Bush pictures, and people still think that the Green Party is a bunch of Tree-hugging white liberal hippies to use the words of John Farley.
Dr. Rosenpenis
27th April 2003, 17:53
what party in America do you support, Umoja?
Sensitive
27th April 2003, 17:55
Well, I think the next U$ presidential election (in 2004) will be between Bushitler and Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman is one of the most right-wing members of the Democrat party and was Gore's VP candidate in 2000. He has been leading almost all of the Democrat primary polls since Gore said he is not going to run again. Having a right-winger like Lieberman win the Democrat primary will actually be good for the American Left though, because then more left-wing activists will leave the Democrat party and go to minor left-wing parties.
thursday night
27th April 2003, 18:58
“left-wing activists will leave the Democrat party”
An oxymoron. You can’t be a left-wing social activist and be a member o an institution like the Democrat Party, unless you’re an opportunist who some grand plan to become an elected member of the government or something.
smoer
27th April 2003, 19:00
euhm isnt bushit a republican instaid of a democrat ???
Sensitive
27th April 2003, 20:53
Quote: from thursday night on 12:58 pm on April 27, 2003
An oxymoron. You can’t be a left-wing social activist and be a member o an institution like the Democrat Party, unless you’re an opportunist who some grand plan to become an elected member of the government or something.
Nope, there are still some groups, like the CPUSA, that support the Democratic party and oppose building a new mass socialist party.
Som
27th April 2003, 21:06
Right now most of the polls say that an unidentified democrat would definetly beat Bush in the elections, and even some say that with specific candidates.
Though if lieberman gets the nomination, it won't really matter, he'll likely lose, considering the democrats havn't figured out that kissing republican ass isn't a good strategy and the liberals that would've voted democrat stay home. But having Lieberman will be no better than having bush, and theres no democrat candidate thats making a strong running that doesn't support Bush's wars. Howard Dean came off as a good liberal anti-war candidate, but seems to have changed his story.
Either way, we'll end up with Bush or with a little luck a slightly less annoying bush with basically the same agenda.
If I bother with it, I'll probably vote green, though I think they won't do any better than last election, with more people voting just to get Bush out.
Umoja
27th April 2003, 22:55
I'm pro-Green Party, only for the sake of NEEDING a third party, and the Greens have influence (compared to the Socialist Party), and they are my hopes. So I vote for my hopes, and lose instead of voting for my fears and winning.
anger is a gift
28th April 2003, 03:29
whoever wins they will not be getting my vote. i refuse to participate in the joke of an election here in the states. it is so sad that the government use the word democracy over and over in speaking of its military missions over seas yet we havent made any strides towards such a goal. fuck them, i won't waste my time going to the polls unless it is to protest their bullshit!
jjack
28th April 2003, 04:23
Nope, there are still some groups, like the CPUSA, that support the Democratic party and oppose building a new mass socialist party.
I think that the CPUSA has a different strategy in mind. The CPUSA.org FAQ says:
"We do run candidates for local offices. Several Communists have not only run but been elected. However, we want to run many more candidates for local offices.
Our expectation is that we will in the future again run national candidates, but we want to be in a position to run campaigns that have the potential to have a significant impact on the electoral process. This requires more members, requires running more candidates for local office to gain experience and to build our mass base, and requires that we are in a position to raise sufficient funds for a national candidacy."
In other words, they ARE interested in building a new mass socialist party...their strategy is to build the party before they dive head-first into national campaigns that may do more harm than good. The way our current electoral process is set up, a Communist Party candidate would only be used by the Republicans to divide progressives and chip away votes from the Democratic candidate. You may have remembered in the 2000 election folks saying, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." I don't put the blame on Nader, I put the blame on our antiquated election system, but I think it holds true nonetheless.
The only way the CPUSA could become a challenger for an office like the presidency is to gain support from the ground level up. At this point in time, no one takes the CPUSA seriously. In order for this to change, the party has to gain household recognition across the country. Seriously, how many people do you think actually realize that the CPUSA even exists?
This process of party-building begins at the local level. Instead of putting all their very, very limited resources into fighting a losing battle for President, they should instead invest them into constructing a strong foundation. This means getting communists elected first to school board, parks & rec boards, city councils, etc. This has to occur in cities and towns across America. Once the party becomes a serious contender at the local level, they will have gained enough support to take it to the County government, the State government, and then the Federal government.
Again, the Communist Party has to make itself worthy of breakfast-table discussion in every home in America before anyone will vote communist. It's much easier to fund a candidate, get them on the ballot and get them into office on the local level than it is to go straight to the national level. In the mean time, running a candidate for an office like President, that we all know they won't win, does more harm than good. What was it that Che said about battles? Only fight if you know you can win.
So, as the voice of support for the CPUSA, I wholeheartedly defend their position and hope to see CP candidates on the ballots in every town across the country soon. I often consider running myself, but we'll have to see about that.
Umoja
28th April 2003, 12:09
A Vote for Nader was a vote for something people wanted. It didn't matter if Nader lost, it's better then voting for what you hate, or not voting at all.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.