Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

2016 US Election

POST REPLY

Who would you vote for in the US presidential election?

Hillary Clinton (Democratic)
4
25%
Donald Trump (Republican)
2
13%
Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
1
6%
Jill Stein (Green)
2
13%
Gloria La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation)
5
31%
Alyson Kennedy (Socialist Workers Party)
0
No votes
Monica Moorehead (Workers World Party)
0
No votes
Mimi Soltysik (Socialist Party USA)
0
No votes
Refuse to vote
2
13%
Other
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 16
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 07 Nov 2016, 01:19
Who would you vote for in the US presidential election? Can't believe this hasn't been asked yet, even with low activity.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 07 Nov 2016, 02:14
I suppose I'll have to vote for She Who Really Should Not Be Named.

I'd prefer to be able to vote for PSL, the party that I believe is the closest to my own personal preferences. It's the least irritatingly Trotskyist of the "major" parties. But the first order of business is to keep Benito out of office. Sigh.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 07 Nov 2016, 07:16
I voted La Riva already, although I should point out that contra the "irritatingly Trotskyist" comment above, the PSL are ultimately a Trotskyist (Marcyite/Orthodox Trot) party in their ideological grounding. I'm not sure quite what you mean by the term though. I also actually tend to like the WWP's articles better, they're much more in-depth, but the PSL has vastly better organizational capacity and can party-build much more easily.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6398
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Sep 2005, 13:48
Embalmed
Post 07 Nov 2016, 11:44
Red Rebel wrote:
Who would you vote for in the US presidential election? Can't believe this hasn't been asked yet, even with low activity.


There's been a long discussion about the presidential elections in TLCTE for a while now. That's where most topics are now discussed.
Now what is this…
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 07 Nov 2016, 13:37
MissStrangelove wrote:
I should point out that contra the "irritatingly Trotskyist" comment above, the PSL are ultimately a Trotskyist (Marcyite/Orthodox Trot) party in their ideological grounding.

They are, yes, but they've also conceded some valuable ground to present day practical reality. Therefore, although some of their positions are irritatingly Trotskyist to my personal sensibilities, they're a lot less offensive about it than other parties on the list, such as SWP.

WWP- I just don't know enough about them to make a minute comparison, but if they're on the other side of the "orthodox Trot" divide, then I'm probably right in preferring PSL.

In my heart of hearts, I'd prefer to see a DeLeonist/Syndicalist party, a la the ancient SLP, but I may as well wish for *insert impossible wish analogy here*.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3799
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 07 Nov 2016, 14:33
I'd vote PSL if I lived there. Mainly because of the good ties it has with Chavism.

I wouldn't vote for any of the two "minor evils". I'd vote Hillary if she were in any way permeable to the bases of the party. But both parties are so detached from the actual population that, well, they got themselves in this situation.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 07 Nov 2016, 15:27
PSL > Jill Stein > other socialists/commies > Trump/Johnson > Refuse to vote.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 71
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Jun 2016, 08:12
Pioneer
Post 07 Nov 2016, 19:26
socialism is the transfer of the means of production from owners, whether as individuals or in association, to the proletariat. Is that not correct? I don't think Hillary or Bernie Sanders are socialist using that definition. All those other leftist parties on that list all seem the same to me, in that they all support the public ownership of resources. I don't understand why you would choose one over the other.
I voted for Hillary out of a "never Trump" mind-set. At Mass yesterday the priest made it clear that he thinks catholics can vote only for pro-life candidates, but there are other considerations.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 07 Nov 2016, 22:07
For the record, my own ranking: La Riva > other communist >>> Stein >>>> Clinton > Johnson >> Trump > McMullin.

Reasons:

La Riva - I can think of only one disagreement I have with her, and that's a conflict in the '80s. Otherwise, pretty consistent leftist platform, and well expressed.

Other communist - Mostly useless, still leftists. For the record Gulper, WWP is ideologically little different from PSL. Their difference was organizational and honestly, mostly personality-based. It was a dumb split.

Stein - Left of the Democrats, any such movement is a good thing. But ultimately a utopian who appears to have no idea what she's doing, and the Greens have a long history in flaky appeal-to-nature politics, hence the need to pander to the anti-vax/anti-GMO crowd.

Clinton - Very business as usual, no serious change. This is mostly a curse because the status quo is pretty bad. Ultimately will stay the course on most things, so better than any challenger to her right who will make things worse. Not least of which because she's so discredited on the left that an Occupy-like movement is likely to spring up again, where with one of the right-wing opponents you have the avenue for a similar milquetoast centrist to (like Obama) paint themselves as a serious change and subvert left-wing opposition come 2020, and then we have to go through this all over again. My main concern is actually her proposal for Treasury Secretary considering this is someone who wants to revive the partial-privatization Clinton/Gore "lockbox" plan for Social Security. This would be a second-term thing, her base would destroy her and she'd likely lose reelection if attempted in the first.

Johnson - Only mildly less hawkish than Clinton, and also wants to savage every last remnant of the New Deal along with the public education system and FDA. Also this is a guy who wants to be President and doesn't follow the news enough to know what Aleppo is. No thanks.

Trump - Cheetofuhrer. Deportation plan (forced to restore it after he tried walking it back), has promised vastly increased powers to police agencies and the NSA (consistent part of his platform), tear up the Iran deal (consistent part of his platform), boots on the ground for a third time in Iraq (has waffled). Fragging creepy mass movement. Most importantly though, as a clear-cut case of NPD prone to starting open knockdown-dragout blood feuds over the most minor of personal setbacks, he's mentally/temperamentally unfit for office.

McMullin - The only thing worthwhile about his candidacy is that he wants to restore considerable power to the legislature, which is a check on authoritarian presidencies. Everything else is standard Reagan-esque "movement conservative" talk, which I basically disagree with in its entirety, and he's the most hawkish candidate in the running combining the worst of both Trump and Clinton's foreign policy views. Basically this is the Cruz campaign with the slight redeeming feature of an empowered legislature.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 08 Nov 2016, 22:39
You'll be happy to know that no serious incident (apart from the beginnings of a fistfight that quickly moved into the parking lot, well away from the action) occurred at the polling place. I managed to do what I've been dreading for years now. I didn't even vomit in the booth, although I had brought a paper bag just in case. Results would be known by midnight if this were the 1990's. I have a feeling this will be another contested verdict.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 09 Nov 2016, 20:20
Well it's all over now. As a third worlder I with heartfelt sincerity take off my hat to American democracy. Never had it been so validated as it was today in my eyes. The resources of so many of the most powerful people in the world poured into the Clinton campaign and to no avail. Incredible.

To some of our comrades here who so passionately did not want to see this outcome I say do not despair and stay positive. It's not like Trump will have a smooth ride ahead of him. He is hated by many, and will have an overwhelming burden of delivering on his interminable bloviating.

At the same time though I shed no tears for the Clintons. It's a fitting end to their legacy thanks in part to Mr. Julian Assange.

See Gulper, I told you these hacktivists were not to be underestimated.


And now for a bit of comedy with a tinge of political truth perhaps:

Trump's first day at the Oval Office after being elected President.

First briefing to the President by CIA, Pentagon, FBI:

Trump: We must destroy ISIS immediately. No delays.

CIA: We cannot do that, sir. We created them along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar and others.

Trump: The Democrats created them.

CIA: We created ISIS, sir. You need them or else you would lose funding from the natural gas lobby.

Trump: Stop funding Pakistan. Let India deal with them.

CIA: We can't do that.

Trump: Why is that?

CIA: India will cut Balochistan out of Pak.

Trump: I don't care.

CIA: India will have peace in Kashmir. They will stop buying our weapons. They will become a superpower. We have to fund Pakistan to keep India busy in Kashmir.

Trump: But you have to destroy the Taliban.

CIA: Sir, we can't do that. We created the Taliban to keep Russia in check during the 80s. Now they are keeping Pakistan busy and away from their nukes.

Trump: We have to destroy terror sponsoring regimes in the Middle East. Let us start with the Saudis.

Pentagon: Sir, we can't do that. We created those regimes because we wanted their oil. We can't have democracy there, otherwise their people will get that oil - and we cannot let their people own it.

Trump: Then, let us invade Iran.

Pentagon: We cannot do that either, sir.

Trump: Why not?

CIA: We are talking to them, sir.

Trump: What? Why?

CIA: We want our stealth drone back. If we attack them, Russia will obliterate us as they did to our
buddy ISIS in Syria. Besides we need Iran to keep Israel in check.

Trump: Then let us invade Iraq again.

CIA: Sir, our friends (ISIS) are already occupying 1/3rd of Iraq.

Trump: Why not the whole of Iraq?

CIA: We need the Shi'ite gov't of Iraq to keep ISIS in check.

Trump: I am banning Muslims from entering US.

FBI: We can't do that.

Trump: Why not?

FBI: Then our own population will become fearless.

Trump: I am deporting all illegal immigrants to south of the border.

Border patrol: You can't do that, sir.

Trump: Why not?

Border patrol: If they're gone, who will build the wall?

Trump: I am banning H1B visas.

USCIS: You cannot do that.

Trump: Why?

Chief of staff: If you do so we'll have to outsource White House operations to Bangalore. Which is in India.

Trump (sweating profusely by now): What the hell should I do as President???

CIA: Enjoy the White House, sir! We will take care of the rest!!!
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 09 Nov 2016, 21:38
That sounds mostly accurate, the only exception I'd take is to the Pakistan bit considering Bush's pivot to India still holds. Obama's weakened his relationship with Pakistan but continued the close ties with India. I think the fear of the Taliban getting ahold of nukes in Northern Pakistan is also genuine.

But, I wouldn't herald this as a shining example of democracy. While Clinton certainly had more major donors, Trump had his fair share of billionaires pouring money into his campaign. More importantly though, like Gore in 2000, Clinton won the popular vote. Trump won due to the fact that our system is egregiously undemocratic, due to disproportionate turnout in a few specific states; specifically, a few Midwestern states that are usually solidly Democratic. States which, unlike his Southern base of support, are populous. But his numbers in the Northeast were egregiously low, and his numbers in the West were below average for a Republican candidate. These are also populous regions, and the ballots they cast against him led to him losing in a vote-for-vote match-up.

I have no brief for the Clintons. As I said in TLCTE, I think any of the other Democratic candidates would have done better. Bernie Sanders would have won, Joe Biden would have won, Elizabeth Warren might have won and would have fared better than Clinton did. This is a failure of the party leadership pitting someone with such a poor track record who kept the donors coming against the most pathetic of pseudo-populists, allowing him to get away with playing himself up as "just folks" and capitalize on the Rust Belt's racial fears rather than offering them a solid economic message.

But the fact remains that, if votes alone elected the President, Donald Trump would not be President-elect. He is only due to an antiquated system designed by the Founders to preserve regional unity across the country at the expense of popular sovereignty, limiting the latter of which was a feature rather than a bug for James Madison.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 09 Nov 2016, 22:34
Yeah, I had assumed that he must have won the popular vote after watching bits and pieces of the election saying that Trump had won by a landslide this morning; but looking it up now online it seems that Clinton may have well won the popular vote.

Oh well, in that case I slightly take back what I said and reiterate what I had said earlier about America having one of the most undemocratic systems in the developed world.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 09 Nov 2016, 22:44
Yeqon wrote:
Yeah, I had assumed that he must have won the popular vote after watching bits and pieces of the election saying that Trump had won by a landslide this morning;

Yeah, that's only the electoral vote, where it's a "comfortable victory"/"minor landslide" like Obama in 2008. The electoral vote, due to the weirdness of how it's set up, is always more disproportionate than the popular vote.

The popular vote was close, but it looks like Clinton is leading consistently.

Quote:
Oh well, in that case I slightly take back what I said and reiterate what I had said earlier about America having one of the most undemocratic systems in the developed world.

Agreed. Killing the electoral college would be helpful, instant-runoff voting or proportional representation would be majorly helpful. Thanks to our IRV system, it looks like Arreguin (Bernie-backed soc-dem) beat Capitelli (Oakland machine candidate; left of Clinton but no progressive) for Mayor of Berkeley, which I'm happy about.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 10 Nov 2016, 07:28
So Trump won. Voted PSL fyi.

Comrade Gulper wrote:
It's the least irritatingly Trotskyist of the "major" parties.


I've been called a Stalinist, Maoist and a Trotskyist as a PSL. I've personally found that Pan-Socialist Brezhnevite Tankie works best.

Comrade Gulper wrote:
But the first order of business is to keep Benito out of office. Sigh.


A year ago that argument would've made more sense, but honestly it has come to the point where it is getting difficult to tell who would be the lesser evil.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 10 Nov 2016, 08:18
Red Rebel wrote:
I've been called a Stalinist, Maoist and a Trotskyist as a PSL. I've personally found that Pan-Socialist Brezhnevite Tankie works best.

That's actually something very similar to what I'd call myself. A middle of the road, conservative Socialist. Incurably radical from the Republican point of view, but pretty run of the mill and boring from ours. I'm okay with that. I'm a Brezhnev Bro.


Red Rebel wrote:
A year ago that argument would've made more sense, but honestly it has come to the point where it is getting difficult to tell who would be the lesser evil.

It's a moot point now. The masks are off, and so are the gloves.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 10 Nov 2016, 21:51
Whatever else happens, I am happy that at least now the chance of a nuclear war over some sand in eastern and northern Syria seems less likely. I am also hopeful that Trump will not allow his state department to support new color revolutions in Russia and the FSU, like Clinton would have; Putin may be an oligarch-supportin', corruption-toleratin', Lenin-hatin' jerk, but I don't know if Russia would survive another 90s-style liberal dictatorship.

As for you Americans out there, now that the mainstream liberal establishment has been at least temporarily discredited and disorganized, and this new weird Republican populist brand has taken power, I urge you to fight the good fight. As TYT pundit Jimmy Dore has suggested, now may be the perfect time for progressives to start building a mass Sandersesque movement, and this time one that the Democratic establishment cannot cheat out of victory.

As the Trump era emerges, I am reminded of the great quote attributed to comrade Che Guevara: "I envy you North Americans. You live in the belly of the beast." Perhaps at no time in our lifetimes is this more true.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 10 Nov 2016, 22:06
soviet78 wrote:
Whatever else happens, I am happy that at least now the chance of a nuclear war over some sand in eastern and northern Syria seems less likely. I am also hopeful that Trump will not allow his state department to support new color revolutions in Russia and the FSU, like Clinton would have; Putin may be an oligarch-supportin', corruption-toleratin', Lenin-hatin' jerk, but I don't know if Russia would survive another 90s-style liberal dictatorship.

I doubt that would have happened. The policy of America's ruling establishment has been containment towards Russia including its ports in Syria, which absolutely risks escalation, but they have no actual desire to overthrow Putin. That combined with the preexisting sense of national shame would create a power vacuum for the rise of a fascist movement, and Chechen terrorists would risk getting their hands on nukes. "Common market from Lisbon to Vladivostok" Putin remaining in power, boxed in and unable to do anything of his own volition but maintaining internal security, serves the interests of neoliberalism much better. Henry Kissinger and Richard Haas, the living embodiments of America's foreign policy establishment, have cautioned about it numerous times.

Quote:
As TYT pundit Jimmy Dore has suggested, now may be the perfect time for progressives to start building a mass Sandersesque movement, and this time one that the Democratic establishment cannot cheat out of victory.

Sure, though I doubt it'll be where Sanders is or left of him. Usually leftward tension rises in response to discredited left-liberals, as in the rise of the New Left in the '60s, Greens and Progressive Democrats in the '90s, and Occupy and the Sanders movement in the '10s. Here, what you'll see is disappointment with Trump in a year's time when his supporters see no wall and no major change, leading to them tilting further right and viewing him as a "traitor to the cause." I shudder to think of what that'll end up in.

Meanwhile, the left will be focused on Trump personally rather than capitalism as a system, like they did Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. That's the ideal opportunity for some left-liberal to present themselves as a serious change, as in Carter, Clinton, and Obama. And people will get behind them just for a reprieve from naked and unabashed beatdowns. I think the best we're likely to get is LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, if he wins California's Governorship. He's at least from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party and raised his national profile with the DNC speech he gave. At worst, Cory Booker is a likely 2020 frontrunner and he's even worse than Hillary Clinton on financial regulation, the surveillance state, and Iran policy.

The overton window, or as Noam Chomsky would refer to it "the range of manufactured consent," is a real phenomenon. And it just shifted right.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 12 Nov 2016, 04:00
The Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party sees it as a caucasian working class uprising. They got a lot of criticism form the rest of the Left for their summer article criticizing the anti-Trump protests as anti-free speech. If they just left it at their civil libertarian position, it might not have been so objectionable, but they went much further than that defending Trump as a non-racist legitimate white working class uprising. And their post-election article goes even further in that direction. Even taking his 3% increase in the Black vote, as proof that its an uprising of workers of all races.

http://www.themilitant.com/2016/8044/804402.html

http://www.politeonsociety.com/2016/03/ ... rotesters/

I thought they were going tinfoil crazy with this article about the NY Times responding to them, but turns out it checks out

http://www.themilitant.com/2016/8044/804454.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/opini ... -vote.html

The SWP would have been the lynchpin of 2016's campaign had Bernie got the nomination as he was a Presidential elector for them back in 1980.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ction.html
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 758
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 12 Nov 2016, 07:28
I've been following the views of the international Communist movement on the US election, particularly that of the KPRF, given the outsized role Russia has played in this election. While the KPRF has generally followed with the rest of Russia in seeing a Trump victory as easing tensions. The KPRF is probably the most skeptical of Trump actually fulfilling his foreign policy promises as opposed to Putin and the nationalists. There have been numerous statements form KPRF leaders not to expect such big changes. And while Zyuganov has had Clinton representing the oligarchic factions, in another commentary he wrote of the Bernie Sanders upsurge and how much of his socialist platform was embraced by Hillary.

I also followed responses to the election on the KPRF's social media page on VK. And I noticed there was a lot of pushback when Zyuganov claimed that this was a victory over global finance capitalism, as Trump is the capitalist of capitalists. There were also people saying that this is actually bad for Putin as he wont be able to blame all of Russia's problems on America anymore.

https://kprf.ru/party-live/cknews/160090.html

Its surprising to me, that while Trump launched his political career with extremely vicious and racist attacks against China. The official state newspaper of China, seems relatively friendly to Trump. Complaining about how the mainstream media is biased against him. And this editorial practically endorsed Trump. Not just as better for China, but also on domestic policy that America values equality too much. Ironic having America chastised for its ultra-egalitarianism by an ostensibly Communist Party government. The author is not a nobody in the PRC state institutions

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1016733.shtml
http://chinaboom.asiasociety.org/bio/detail/203
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1011749.shtml

Also saw that wikipedia linked that hardliners in the Cuban Communist Party who fear they have moved to quickly and close to the US are happy about this.

And then this is the reaction of CPs around the world.

http://icp.sol.org.tr/americana/communi ... sa-updated
Kamran Heiss
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.