So who are you pulling for in the U.S. primaries?

[Cheung Mo]

Democrat: Dennis Kucinich...Along with Bernie Sanders, he's about the only guy in the U.S. political establishment who really means well.

Republican: Equally easy. Mike Huckabee. They're all equally bad, so we might as well "support" the candidate capable of providing us with the entertainment value that only a person more stupid Dumbya and Dan Quayle combined has to offer.

As for who disgusts me most in both parties?

Hillary Clinton...She has no business spewing that "no woman is illegal" rhetoric while she's helping the U.S. military blow up innocent women and children in Iraq. Besides, any "feminist" whose view of woman's liberation is centred around her ability to ascend to the Wal-mart board of directors needs to be rendered completely powerless.

[Holden Caulfield]

pulling the whole crying for votes thing was a crafty trick though maybe we have another Reagan,

a wanker, a politician, and a actor at the same time, and apparently women multi-task so much better

Hillary Clinton loves women and children....they make up for the cheap labour for her business interests

[jake williams]

I generally agree with Dennis Kucinich. He's definitely the best candidate running by miles (and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives, which is an important metric when we're talking about American presidents - my week's favourite Chomsky line, "[Jimmy Carter] is the only postwar president who wouldn't've been hung at Nuremberg). And like the Daily Show pointed out, his wife's a FLILF.

I don't like Barack Obama. He's an ultramoderate, and as we all should realize immediately, an ultramoderate on the American spectrum is a hyperconservative ("conservative", of course, in the fashionable sense, and not the sense, say, Chomsky defends so vigorously). He has no policies. And I don't want the first black president to be, if I've got his background correct, half-Kenyan bourgeois. I want to see the kid, hey, girl, who grew up in Harlem - and not just so they can say "We did so pick a black guy once!" but because that person would actually represented a poorly represented community. I mean, to some extent Obama would, but I'm just uncomfortable with him (and partly for what I guess are racist "he's not black enough" standards, standards I wouldn't hold him to were he white, but not entirely).

[Redscare102]

On the Republican side, Alan Keyes. On the Democratic side, Mike Gravel. Keyes should pick Trent Lott or Larry Craig as his VP, and Gravel should pick Al Sharpton.

That way, nobody will vote. :D Sadly, it won't happen... ever.

[INDK]

I'm pulling for no one and you should too.

[Redscare102]

I'm pulling for no one and you should too.

That's basically my stance. But if I had to choose, it would be the ones that would alienate the most people. Total lack of voter turnout would be great.

[Cult of Reason]

Colbert disappointed me, so, in desperate need for comedic relief, I turn to Ron Paul.

[jake williams]

I'm pulling for no one and you should too.
Well okay, but let's be sensible. There will not be a violent revolution that overthrows capital and the federal government before November.

[SouthernBelle82]

I'm not really sure yet. The person I was supporting has dropped out so I'm not really excited about anyone now. :( Oh and Bernie Sanders isn't running for president the last time I checked unless he recently announced or something. If I thought my vote for Brian Moore would count I'd vote for him (socialist party candidate).

[INDK]

Well okay, but let's be sensible. There will not be a violent revolution that overthrows capital and the federal government before November.

No matter when there's revolution, we fundamentally oppose capitalists and their parties and therefore there is no reason to participate in their elections; there will still be exploitation, there will still be alienation; voting changes nothing, it is simply you helping another capitalist take control, which they will do without your help. This thread is fucking pointless, especially on a revolutionary leftist board.

[Redscare102]

Come on, you all know you like the sound of Communists for Keyes. :P

[Colonello Buendia]

I'm not up to speed on Yank politics, so bloody complicated! but I f I were too choose I'd choose someone at random and the go Lee Harvey Oswald on their arse, if there is a poor voter turn out weirdo's (Ron Paul, John Mcain(satan)) could get in so if I was to choose I'd go for the least evil



DON'T VOTE CLINTON

[piet11111]

im doubting my position of non-participation in "democracy's"
lenin and other socialists have written about the usefullness of bourgeois democracy as a "soapbox" for voicing socialist ideals to the public.

but i disagree as these days any leftist positions are simply ignored on the mass media unless its a scandal.

[RadioRaheem84]

it's the Clintoons! They destroyed the Democratic Party and made it Republican-lite. Today's Democrats are simply Moderate Republicans and the Modern Republicans have the gaul to call them "left-wing", "liberal".

I mean Clinton spawned the whole "New Democrat" movement which is basically a mirror of "New Labour" in Great Britian, which none other than a re-hash of Reaganeqsue policies with moderate social spending.

Could you imagine if someone like McGovern or FDR were running today and how their platforms would be denounced by both the DNC and the GOP? Even LBJ and his Great Society platform would be reviled as "BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM".

The Ring Wing Spin doctors have really made an impact on their base and actually making them believe Hillary Clinton is this Socialist Leftist who's coming to take their checks and give it to the poor. My girlfriends father who is just to the right of Rush Limbaugh, thinks Hillary is a freakin' reincarnation of Chairman Mao and when elected will take his business away.

How the hell, I mean, really, HOW THE HELL, do Rush baby, Faux News hounds think that the Clintons are left wing?

[INDK]

lenin and other socialists have written about the usefullness of bourgeois democracy as a "soapbox" for voicing socialist ideals to the public.



I would agree, if only any of the candidates in this thread are remotely socialist... Lenin and the rest were around when there were lots of socialist parties

[RadioRaheem84]

I
lenin and other socialists have written about the usefullness of bourgeois democracy as a "soapbox" for voicing socialist ideals to the public.




Sounds like Fabian Socialism to me. Social Democratic movement perhaps?

[jake williams]

No matter when there's revolution, we fundamentally oppose capitalists and their parties and therefore there is no reason to participate in their elections; there will still be exploitation, there will still be alienation; voting changes nothing, it is simply you helping another capitalist take control, which they will do without your help.
No. I hate to say this because I find myself saying it far too often, but I take the Chomsky line here, too. Look - if someone says, "Do you want me to shoot you in the face, or shoot you into the foot?", while your view is certainly "I am fundamentally opposed to being shot at all, and will not support your efforts to shoot me in the foot"... it's still a whole hell of a lot better to be shot in the foot. So look, if you don't have any other option, and I hate to say this but for the short term we don't, you pick one. Granted, you do everything in your power not to be shot at all. You say "I don't want you to shoot me at all". But if it comes down to it, you obviously would prefer getting shot in the foot.

Further - while the differences between the candidates is slight, and the distance between mainstream candidates is minuscule, it's not non-zero, it's not even irrelevant. You have to consider it.


This thread is fucking pointless, especially on a revolutionary leftist board.
This, maybe, I would agree with. It is obvious that no one here would accept any of the candidates running for the Capitalist Party. But there are better candidates and worse candidates, with a US president this can literally be tens of thousands of lives difference, and we can just tell these people, "No, we want our revolution". We can keep that view, of course, none of us will ever accept the capitalist candidate - but we must recognize that there's a difference and it's important.

[Dros]

I don't support any Bourgeois candidates. I do not vote. I do not validate or legitimize this brutal dictatorship by playing in their little game of "democracy." This government does not represent the people's interests. I refuse to pretend that they do.


I think it would be hillarious if Ron Paul won. It'd also triple the likelihood of revolution...

[jake williams]

I think it would be hillarious if Ron Paul won. It'd also triple the likelihood of revolution...
This whole concept is one of the most difficult people of our persuasion have to deal with - that exacerbation of misery can stimulate revolution. I'm genuinely undecided what to think about this. It's tricky.

[Pawn Power]

I will not be participating in the racket that is US presidential elections.

Come on do you really have to ask. The thing is joke. One has a choice between multi-millionaire and scum fucker...please, like you vote really counted (or even get counted) anyways!

To see how fucking slimy the major presidential candidates on check out this piece by Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

as one of the guests note "the US Election is Already Over. Murder and Preventable Death Have Won."

[Red October]

I think jammoe's argument is liberal and defeatist. Of course we won't have a revolution before November 2nd, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. And the "shoot you in the face or foot" arguent is ridiculous because it presents those as the only options, which is exactly what bourgeois democracy seeks to do. The choice is not where you want to get shot, it's if you want to get shot at all. The path to liberation is not begging the bourgeois for looser chains, the point is to destroy the whole system. By endorsing bourgeois candidates you are giving your support, tacitly, or not, to bourgeois democracy. Revolution is not about compromise with the masters, it's about forcing the masters out. Bourgeois democracy is at best a weak compromise with capitalism, if not an outright betrayal of revolution.

[Coggeh]

Can you sell your right to vote on ebay ? .....

[RedAnarchist]

I dont know why Americans bother, because at least in other countries theres a chance that a third party might get into power. In America there is only two parties who have any chance and even then they are hardly different (sometimes they even overlap). We have quite a similar setup here in the UK as well.

[jake williams]

I think jammoe's argument is liberal and defeatist. Of course we won't have a revolution before November 2nd, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. And the "shoot you in the face or foot" arguent is ridiculous because it presents those as the only options, which is exactly what bourgeois democracy seeks to do. The choice is not where you want to get shot, it's if you want to get shot at all. The path to liberation is not begging the bourgeois for looser chains, the point is to destroy the whole system. By endorsing bourgeois candidates you are giving your support, tacitly, or not, to bourgeois democracy. Revolution is not about compromise with the masters, it's about forcing the masters out. Bourgeois democracy is at best a weak compromise with capitalism, if not an outright betrayal of revolution.
Truth is I basically disagree with you. I'm not saying that we should actively support candidates, I think we should do everything we can to destroy the system and create a sensible one that's good for people. But I think we shouldn't deceive ourselves - it's basically a fact that there won't be a revolution in the next 10 months, even though I wouldn't only support it but I will do what I can to encourage it, and it's a fact that some candidates are substantially better than others, even though they're all horrible options.

Partly it's an effort thing - if you can put very little effort into making a slight improvement to a horrible system, even if you want to destroy it and are actively trying to destroy it on every other day, I think you should do it. I don't think voting for the lesser of two evils lends assent, I mean, that could be the case, and moreover it may be that our making the situation less horrible strengthens it against revolution and that by this you're doing something wrong in doing so.

I guess that was kind of the point of my last post, and about this I'm just plainly undecided, it's possible that we genuinely want the situation for American workers to get worse because that would stimulate revolution, that may be the case, I don't know. I lean towards the idea that we should not smash the workers to break their chains, but should rather work gradually to get them to break their chains, and yes, if an easy opportunity arises to loosen them, we do.

All of these are tactical things we debate about, alright?


edit: I should probably add that I'm repulsed as anyone else, the idea that the current mechanisms are the best possible, even remotely tolerable, ones for achieving political change. They are not sufficient. The Democratic Party does not give us everything we want, will never give us what we want, but look - my point is it's non-zero.

edit2:The "chains" analogy is a bad one. If you're standing next to someone in chains, you break them. Partly though, we're chained too. But also, I mean, just extend the metaphor, say we can't just break the chains right away. If someone walks by and says "I can loosen them," then first of course you say "No, break them, fucker!". But if they refuse, I guess the "tactical decision" is that we say "Alright, loosening them is better than not loosening them".

[Pawn Power]

I dont know why Americans bother, because at least in other countries theres a chance that a third party might get into power. In America there is only two parties who have any chance and even then they are hardly different (sometimes they even overlap). We have quite a similar setup here in the UK as well.

I think a third party would make a huge difference. What makes the elections a scam is not that only two parties compete or that their is voting fraud and extreme gerrymandering but that the election is based in a hierarchical state-government system and dictated by capitalist interests. A third party would not necessarily change this.

[Pawn Power]

Can you sell your right to vote on ebay ? .....

Interestingly, i read a report that that gave a statistic of something like nearly half or maybe even over ( I don't exactly remember) of college students would trade their right to vote for a I-Pod.

...my guess is that half of the one that wouldn't already have i-pods. :rolleyes:

[RedAnarchist]

Interestingly, i read a report that that gave a statistic of something like nearly half or maybe even over ( I don't exactly remember) of college students would trade their right to vote for a I-Pod.

...my guess is that half of the one that wouldn't already have i-pods. :rolleyes:

I think we had a thread about that a while back.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm not wasting my time voting, especially since Michigan was stripped of all its delegates to the democratic convention for breaking party rules, lol.

[Pawn Power]

I think we had a thread about that a while back.

well thats probably where i read it then. :p

[Forward Union]

So who are you pulling for in the U.S. primaries?

The working class

[Faux Real]

I'm jumping aboard the RuPaul Revolution (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2184958598&size=m&context=set-72157603692669659) bandwagon. Fabulous!

[Dros]

This whole concept is one of the most difficult people of our persuasion have to deal with - that exacerbation of misery can stimulate revolution. I'm genuinely undecided what to think about this. It's tricky.

I was actually just thinking that he would dismantle the state and remove a lot of repressive institutions. Removing the FBI, the Justice Department, and the CIA would make revolution much easier.

[Pawn Power]

The working class

sorry, none of them are running.

[Cryotank Screams]

I'm pulling for no one and you should too.

Exactly!

[w0lf]

Obviously no one.

[Davie zepeda]

john Edwards lol hahahah get them with your 200 hundred dollar haircuts

[VukBZ2005]

I am not pulling for nobody. They are all the same, when you come down to it, anyway.

[Brekisonphilous]

kucinich would be the best of them for the working class, hands down.

Mike Gravel is looking to empower the people.

[MarxSchmarx]

I can't vote for her but Cynthia McKinney:

http://www.runcynthiarun.org/

[kromando33]

I am not 'pulling' for anyone, of any party, they all support the continued existence of the dictatorship of the bourgeois.

[Red October]

The working class

And there's the people who can't possibly win in these elections

[Luís Henrique]

Well okay, but let's be sensible. There will not be a violent revolution that overthrows capital and the federal government before November.

Soyons realistes, demandons l'impossible.

The fact that there is not going to be a revolution, violent or not, to overthrow capital before November doesn't mean that we must support some candidate from one of the two State parties.

And the fact that we shouldn't support a candidate from one of the two State parties doesn't mean that we should necessarily abstain or refuse to vote. There will be minor candidates, and I would say the best thing that could possibly be achieved in November is breaking the two State parties duopoly on politics.

Supporting any of the standing pre-candidates (with the possible exception of Paul) amounts to support the chosen candidates. Kucinich may be a very good man, very well intentioned, etc. But he is not going to win the Democratic nomination, and when this becomes clear, he is going to withdraw and support Barack Obama (heck, he already did it in the Iowa caucus). So, unless we are willing to support Obama and his empty rhetoric, we should not support Kucinich.

As we very well know, the election will be between Hillary or Obama in one side, and McCain or Giuliani in the other (or less probably, Romney; in the improbable case Huckabee is mischosen, it is not going to be an election, but an unopposed walk for the Democratic candidate). The others are mainly disputing minor positions within the expected government of the victors. This is why Paul is different - his pre-candidacy is possibly a previous move towards an independent campaign. Unhappily, in his particular case, "different" doesn't mean better...

In any case, the turnouts, until now, have been unexpectedly high. This is because low turnouts have never been an indication that the American populace has rejected electoral politics as an uneffective means for a desired change. On the contrary, they have always been a symptom that the American populace does not see the need for change. It is the crisis within the Republican Party, mostly caused by Bush's failure to attain a significant victory in Iraq, that has convinced Americans that a change is necessary - which immediately has soared the turnout numbers...

Luís Henrique

[ellipsis]

Along with Bernie Sanders, he's about the only guy in the U.S. political establishment who really means well.


thats my boy. bernie has done my state proud. frankly i am not supporting any candidate, but i if i had to choose (or lose) then i would say obama, because he supports rural gun ownership unlike overlord KLEEN-TON who would take my guns away faster than you say "fuck, she won!". Obama also smokes cigs and admits to past drug use, so at least he is honest about his past.

[ellipsis]

john Edwards lol hahahah get them with your 200 hundred dollar haircuts

400 dollar haircuts

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I'm not

[black magick hustla]

ron paul for comedic relief

[w0lf]

Actually, on second thought I'm pulling for Kucinich

[Pawn Power]

Actually, on second thought I'm pulling for Kucinich

You do know Kucinich has been historically used by the democratic party to capture the ant-war vote? In the last election they used him to pull the anti-war vote from Nader and then after Kucinich lost the primary he endorsed the democratic candidate (Kerry).

Don't be played into their ploys.

[kromando33]

Kucinich pretty much embodies the strange confused liberal with no chance.

[Davie zepeda]

lol 400 hundred dollar hair cuts even better got to look good to be a president

[Joby]

I support Kucinich, but I'm really pulling for Ron Paul.

I mean, the guy openly calls America an Empire, wishes to end the wars on iraq/terror/drugs, end the federal death penalty and minimum term sentencing, get rid of the federal reserve (ie the bank which controls the American economy and something we leftists need to get rid of), end the IRS (I'm a leftist, but I also work for a living), Bring the Troops Home (as in close ALL 700+ US Bases overseas), and end the MASSIVE Corporate Welfare system we have.

[nom de guerre]

This thread blatantly demonstrates how unapologetically reformist a decent amount of RevLeft is. Not very inspiring.

VP&co got it right.

[Joby]

This thread blatantly demonstrates how unapologetically reformist a decent amount of RevLeft is. Not very inspiring.

VP&co got it right.


You mean many of us are "planted in reality" or "wish for progressive things to actually happen" or "get annoyed by those who call for the revolution yet never do anything" or "realize that revolutionary bloggers must be some real losers" or "If you have the internet and time to post here, you're doing much better than 95% of the proletariat" or on and on and on

[Tatarin]

I mean, the guy openly calls America an Empire, ...

It doesn't matter what anyone calls the US, it still isn't going to change what it is doing. Fox News is quite outspoken when it comes to lies, racism, homophobia, anti-feminism and many other topics.


... end the federal death penalty and minimum term sentencing, ...

But he want to give states more power, and what will happen if a state decides to continue or start a death penalty? Will he use his federal powers as president, the same thing he is against?


... get rid of the federal reserve (ie the bank which controls the American economy and something we leftists need to get rid of), ...

But it doesn't remove the fact that the state will remain capitalist.

And I don't think tax evasion will become rampant and somehow acceptable if the IRS is abolished.


... and end the MASSIVE Corporate Welfare system we have.

Which seems to be Ron Paul's paradox. He wants to minimize government as much as possible, but what will happen if all regulations and checks end? Corporations will gain more power, social benefit (what is left of it) will be gone, and US citizens will be forced to lower their wages and work for longer hours.

Paul has already said that he thinks socialism and communism has failed, and what we need is more market, more globalization, less regulations, unions, etc.

[SamiBTX]

I agree with Ron Paul on some things & definetly NOT on others.
I think Kucinich is the only one who gives a rat's ass about the plight of the
comman man. But he doesn't have a chance at winning.
My mother loves Edwards & just say "ugh". He's a pretty boy, so everything he says sounds good.
And what the hell is up with Obama!? Just because he's black doesn't mean he's the candidate of change.

I hate this stagnet two-party system so much!:mad:

[More Fire for the People]

You know, I was really caught up in the hyberbole surrounding Obama. Then I started watching the debates and I was blown away by the rhetoric used by Kucinich: saying no human being is illegal and calling for a 'working man's White House'. Bill Richardson was also impressive. I think Obama opens up the political terrain more than Hilary but now I feel bad that even I, a radical & socialist, would overlook the more left-wing candidates.

[Cheung Mo]

And unlike Clinturd, his definition of "human" applies to Iraqis.

[Joby]

It doesn't matter what anyone calls the US, it still isn't going to change what it is doing. Fox News is quite outspoken when it comes to lies, racism, homophobia, anti-feminism and many other topics.

He wants to pull the US out of the 130 (out of 190) Nations we have a military prescence in--IMMEDIATELY.

Not even Kucinich is that progressive. (though he is a close second)


But he want to give states more power, and what will happen if a state decides to continue or start a death penalty? Will he use his federal powers as president, the same thing he is against?

Many states already have a death penalty, and it will be much easier to change a state's policy than the feds on a grassroots level.

Once again, only Kucinch gives Paul some competition as to who is more progressive.


But it doesn't remove the fact that the state will remain capitalist.

One bank controls the economy. Let's break it down.


And I don't think tax evasion will become rampant and somehow acceptable if the IRS is abolished.

Uhhh...You're Right. Because there wouldn't be an income tax.


Which seems to be Ron Paul's paradox. He wants to minimize government as much as possible, but what will happen if all regulations and checks end? Corporations will gain more power, social benefit (what is left of it) will be gone, and US citizens will be forced to lower their wages and work for longer hours.

Regulations, by this govt, ARE MADE TO BENEFIT CORPORATIONS. Do you honestly believe that these are created for the good of the people? :rolleyes:

FOR EXAMPLE:

---Every alternative to big business healthcare is illegal. It would be much cheaper for millions of people to buy their drugs at a lower cost from Canada, or, if they really want to save, Cuba. Or, they could just smoke some pot instead of buying pills when they get a cold.

But no, Regulation saves people from themselves and makes sure they buy "good" (ie very corporate) drugs. (and hillarys plan is even worse for us leftists, but thats another debate)

---The federal government gives HUGE subsidies to Oil and Coal, while regulation makes sure that, for example, ethanol imported from Brazil has a $.53 tarrif on every gallon.

---Large corporations pay, what's to them, a small fee in order to pollute in massive amounts (under the pay-to-pollute style programs). Meanwhile, small alternatives are locked out by the same regulations.


Paul has already said that he thinks socialism and communism has failed,

And I disagree with him strongly. But he's still waaaaaay better than the status-quo "let's give no-bid contracts to defense/big pharma" candidates.


and what we need is more market, more globalization,

He's always voted against our involvement, and creation of, NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank.


less regulations, unions, etc.

Not necessarily, just at the federal level.

BTW, I DO NOT AGREE with a LOT of what Paul says.

But I DO agree with him on Foreign Policy 100% and, facing a Democrat majority in congress, he won't be able to do anything too drastic domestically.

[KC]

Then I started watching the debates and I was blown away by the rhetoric used by Kucinich: saying no human being is illegal and calling for a 'working man's White House'.

Don't get too excited, because that's just what it is - rhetoric.

Actually I think Ron Paul would be good to vote for, if not for the sole reason that he would be a disaster for capitalism - that is, if voting actually did anything.

[kromando33]

I think we Marxists should try to detract ourselves from populist rhetoric not attached to meaningful action, and seek to speak the truth in a practical manner.

[Axel1917]

I am going to work on building Bolshevism instead of rooting for any of these bourgeois candidates.

[Luís Henrique]

get rid of the federal reserve (ie the bank which controls the American economy and something we leftists need to get rid of),

Now, this is not a progressive idea in any way.

A capitalist economy absolutely needs a central bank; its functions cannot be privatisated without creating violent crises that will be paid for by the working class. So unless you believe Paul is a socialist, or that his government is going to be so outrageous that it will make the working class uprise to overthrow the bourgeois State, you shouldn't support that.

Imagine an economy in which private banks minted money...

But there is another problem with Paul's anti-FED rhetoric: it is a code for his antisemitism. When he says he is against the FED, what he means is, "you know that I cannot state publicly what I really think of the Jews and their control of the world, but you also know what I do think of them".

Luís Henrique

[Joby]

A capitalist economy absolutely needs a central bank; its functions cannot be privatisated without creating violent crises that will be paid for by the working class. So unless you believe Paul is a socialist, or that his government is going to be so outrageous that it will make the working class uprise to overthrow the bourgeois State, you shouldn't support that.

Imagine an economy in which private banks minted money...

That already exists. The Fed is a private bank (and no more 'federal' than federal express), and they control the money in America.

I think the people should have control of monetary policy, so it's not altered in order to funnel profits to large corporations via them playing with the prime rate. Because they do this, inflation has been so rampant that millions of peoples savings are worth little, and the US has found a way to prpetually fund the Keynsian Military-Industrial-Prison complex.


But there is another problem with Paul's anti-FED rhetoric: it is a code for his antisemitism. When he says he is against the FED, what he means is, "you know that I cannot state publicly what I really think of the Jews and their control of the world, but you also know what I do think of them".

It's true that many have called for ending the FED on the basis of a "jewish conspiracy," but, honestly, I don't think this is Pauls motivation.

He's really big on Austrian economics (the idea that the freer the market, the freer the people, especially in monetary and banking policy) and one of his economic idols is Murray Rothbard, a Jew.

[Zeus the Moose]

I'm involved in the Socialist Party USA's campaign of Brian Moore for President and Stewart Alexander for Vice President, so they're the ones I am pulling for most. However, since ballot access in the US is stacked against third parties, on places where the Moore/Alexander ticket is not on the ballot I'd support any socialist candidates that are, or Cynthia McKinney (assuming she gets the Green Party's nomination.)

I do think that running openly socialist electoral campaigns at as many levels of government as possible is important, though the main purpose of such should be to explain our party and platform rather than pander for votes. If people like what they hear, they should vote for a socialist candidate regardless of the "spoiler" potential, and combined with work in mass movements, we'll eventually get somewhere. Probably not a president, but having people on city councils and state assemblies elected on a socialist platform and pushing for a socialist agenda will definitely help out the movement as a whole.

[Joby]

I'm involved in the Socialist Party USA's campaign of Brian Moore for President and Stewart Alexander for Vice President, so they're the ones I am pulling for most. However, since ballot access in the US is stacked against third parties, on places where the Moore/Alexander ticket is not on the ballot I'd support any socialist candidates that are, or Cynthia McKinney (assuming she gets the Green Party's nomination.)

Do youn know if Moore will be on the Texas ballot?

[Zeus the Moose]

If the SPTX can get 50,000 signatures, then yes.

I think the plan for Texas is to get official write-in status, which is a lot easier than petitioning to get on the ballot as a third party or independent candidate. It will mean that the Moore/Alexander ticket will not be on the ballot, but any write-in votes for the ticket will be counted and tabulated. So, the answer is more or less no, but it would still be worth it to write in the name.

[Cryotank Screams]

I'm involved in the Socialist Party USA's campaign of Brian Moore for President and Stewart Alexander for Vice President, so they're the ones I am pulling for most.

Social-Democrat?

[Zeus the Moose]

Social-Democrat?

Kind of. The Socialist Party is a fairly broad organisation, so we have members ranging from social democrats to general revolutionary socialists to open Trotskyists. Hell, we even have some anarchist members, for whatever reasons. Officially though, the SP-USA is not a social democratic party (neither am I, as well.)

But our presidential candidates do trend towards the center of the SP, which means they are a bit more social democratic than the party as a whole.

[Bright Banana Beard]

So how much active is SP-USA is? Do they have a website?

[Zeus the Moose]

So how much active is SP-USA is? Do they have a website?

Website is sp-usa.org orsocialistparty-usa.org. Both lead to the same place.

In the areas where we have a decent number of members we're fairly active. From what I know our most active areas are New York City, northern New Jersey, Boston, and parts of Michigan, though South Florida seems to be growing nicely as well.

[bobroberts]

Obama has the best chance of moving the country to the left, even if it won't be by much. He seems serious about wanting to open up the government and make it responsive to the needs of average people, which will create an environment where more leftist politics can grow. He may not be a true leftist in the spirit that I would like, but anyone who is would be foolish to expose their leftists beliefs if they want a serious chance at winning the presidency. Even Castro had to mask the true nature of the Cuban revolution until escalating confrontations with the US forced his hand.

[Pawn Power]

So how much active is SP-USA is? Do they have a website?

Here is the're website, though i dont know how active they are
http://sp-usa.org/