Irrelevant Microparties Megathread: Veterans' Party nominates first nat'l ticket

[Oak Hills]

http://ballot-access.org/2015/07/24/party-for-socialism-and-liberation-announces-2016-presidential-ticket/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For those of you unfamiliar with this party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Socialism_and_Liberation

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

That Wiki page reads like a government file on a subversive organization.

[Yelnoc]

lol Maoists

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

They nominate LaRiva every year on the ticket seeing as their original nominees are always too young.

[Zioneer]

They're the ones who keep running ineligible presidential tickets, right? Lol Maoists.

[Pyro]

Hm. I prefer Peta Lindsay to La Riva but not the worst choice to make.
Helluva lot better than the blowhards we've been hearing from, to say the least.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

How many votes will they get this time? 3,000? LOL

[Pyro]

How many votes will they get this time? 3,000? LOL

As with all third party candidacies, the PSL is not covered by mainstream media and is certainly not financed by major corporations meaning less/no political ads, town halls, etc. So yeah, you get less votes.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

How many votes will they get this time? 3,000? LOL

As with all third party candidacies, the PSL is not covered by mainstream media and is certainly not financed by major corporations meaning less/no political ads, town halls, etc. So yeah, you get less votes.

If the mainstream media covered this party, the public's main reaction would be to call for bringing back the Red Scare.

[Yelnoc]

How many votes will they get this time? 3,000? LOL

As with all third party candidacies, the PSL is not covered by mainstream media and is certainly not financed by major corporations meaning less/no political ads, town halls, etc. So yeah, you get less votes.

That's not a sufficient explanation. The socialist Party before WWII got over 100,000 votes like clockwork. And they certainly weren't financed by major corporations or given non red-baiting coverage by the press. The sectarian left's problems are in many ways of their own making. And Maoists are particularly to blame.

[Zioneer]

How many votes will they get this time? 3,000? LOL

As with all third party candidacies, the PSL is not covered by mainstream media and is certainly not financed by major corporations meaning less/no political ads, town halls, etc. So yeah, you get less votes.

Pretty sure it's because they're a hopeless Marxist-Leninist party (or Maoist or whatever) that has no money, no friends among fellow socialists, and no clue.

[Clark Kent]

Freaking commies.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No one cares

[NeverAgain]

Here's a bright idea, 'socialists' endorse Bernie...

[Pyro]

How many votes will they get this time? 3,000? LOL

As with all third party candidacies, the PSL is not covered by mainstream media and is certainly not financed by major corporations meaning less/no political ads, town halls, etc. So yeah, you get less votes.

That's not a sufficient explanation. The socialist Party before WWII got over 100,000 votes like clockwork. And they certainly weren't financed by major corporations or given non red-baiting coverage by the press. The sectarian left's problems are in many ways of their own making. And Maoists are particularly to blame.

I certainly don't disagree with you or what the other posters said regarding sectarianism. There's no organized Left in the US, and as you said, what is remaining is divided enough as it is. But I don't think it's fair to compare today's political atmosphere with one so distant, especially pre-50s Red Scare and pre-AFL-CIO. Quite a lot has happened, both internally and externally, which leads us to where we are now. Moving forward, I don't see any any successes without a coalition.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

haha i remember writing them in in my high school's mock election. good times

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How many votes will they get this time? 3,000? LOL

As with all third party candidacies, the PSL is not covered by mainstream media and is certainly not financed by major corporations meaning less/no political ads, town halls, etc. So yeah, you get less votes.

That's not a sufficient explanation. The socialist Party before WWII got over 100,000 votes like clockwork. And they certainly weren't financed by major corporations or given non red-baiting coverage by the press. The sectarian left's problems are in many ways of their own making. And Maoists are particularly to blame.

I certainly don't disagree with you or what the other posters said regarding sectarianism. There's no organized Left in the US, and as you said, what is remaining is divided enough as it is. But I don't think it's fair to compare today's political atmosphere with one so distant, especially pre-50s Red Scare and pre-AFL-CIO. Quite a lot has happened, both internally and externally, which leads us to where we are now. Moving forward, I don't see any any successes without a coalition.

And as for this..

Here's a bright idea, 'socialists' endorse Bernie...

I wouldn't be caught dead endorsing him.
My thoughts -> http://socialistworker.org/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-is-no-eugene-debs

I find it ironic that a Green Party member is attacking Sanders. Bourgeois much?

[Yelnoc]

How many votes will they get this time? 3,000? LOL

As with all third party candidacies, the PSL is not covered by mainstream media and is certainly not financed by major corporations meaning less/no political ads, town halls, etc. So yeah, you get less votes.

That's not a sufficient explanation. The socialist Party before WWII got over 100,000 votes like clockwork. And they certainly weren't financed by major corporations or given non red-baiting coverage by the press. The sectarian left's problems are in many ways of their own making. And Maoists are particularly to blame.

I certainly don't disagree with you or what the other posters said regarding sectarianism. There's no organized Left in the US, and as you said, what is remaining is divided enough as it is. But I don't think it's fair to compare today's political atmosphere with one so distant, especially pre-50s Red Scare and pre-AFL-CIO. Quite a lot has happened, both internally and externally, which leads us to where we are now. Moving forward, I don't see any any successes without a coalition.

A coalition of who? Are you a Harringtonite? Or do you mean the PSL, ISO, SAlt, the Green Party and whoever else combining their forces to get ~1 million?

And as for this..

Here's a bright idea, 'socialists' endorse Bernie...

I wouldn't be caught dead endorsing him.
My thoughts -> http://socialistworker.org/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-is-no-eugene-debs

I really don't understand this mindset. What do his impurities matter? His candidacy as an open socialist is forcing the media to address socialism seriously, and exposing swathes of people to the ideology. What more do you want?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I read an article a while back that I can't seem to find atm that said that many socialists thought Bernie was too conservative for them and he panders to the Democrats too much.

[Comrade Funk]

I read an article a while back that I can't seem to find atm that said that many socialists thought Bernie was too conservative for them and he panders to the Democrats too much.

Probably the same crowd that thinks Palestine is more important than Social Security and Medicare

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I read an article a while back that I can't seem to find atm that said that many socialists thought Bernie was too conservative for them and he panders to the Democrats too much.

Sanders is no true leftist, but he's pretty liberal despite being pragmatic to get things done in the United States Senate. He's a good candidate unless you're a purity troll or a conservadem.

[NeverAgain]

Sanders is no true leftist, but he's pretty liberal despite being pragmatic to get things done in the United States Senate. He's a good candidate unless you're a purity troll or a conservadem.

[Famous Mortimer]

From what I can tell, the far left complains with Sanders are 1) He won't nationalize all private property 2) He won't condemn all White people as inherently and irredeemably racist 3) He won't support Hamas annexing the State of Israel.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

From what I can tell, the far left complains with Sanders are 1) He won't nationalize all private property 2) He won't condemn all White people as inherently and irredeemably racist 3) He won't support Hamas annexing the State of Israel.

I'd say that they should just be ignored, to be honest. They're never important any other time. There's not enough of them to make a difference.

There's left, like Sanders and Brown and Warren to an extent, and then you cross the line to the third parties that are more focused on purity rather than actually electing someone and getting something done.

[Indy Texas]

I read an article a while back that I can't seem to find atm that said that many socialists thought Bernie was too conservative for them and he panders to the Democrats too much.

Probably the same crowd that thinks Palestine is more important than Social Security and Medicare

Is that really any less irrational than Republicans who think Israel is more important than tax reform or protecting the Second Amendment?

As for the comments about socialist/Leftist parties in the US, part of the reason socialists never gained a sustainable following in the US was precisely because the American socialists were so much more radical than those in Europe. A lot of the European socialists who opposed building coalitions with "bourgeois" reform movements emigrated to the US. Combine that with the fact that American industrialists were often even more hostile to socialist activism than conservative European aristocrats were (hiring private security guards to gun down striking workers, for example) and you ended up with an American socialist movement that was very violent, anarchist and confrontational in nature.