This is all yet another extension of the "big lie" that traces back to the Red Scare daze, where the terms "communist" and "socialist" were intentionally tarnished and conflated with the more authoritarian European governments (and ignored with the less authoritarian ones to which the same labels could apply) as political pandering --- which also led to the intentional slurring of Liberalism by the same hyperconservative demagogues in the McCarthy era.
Ronald Reagan dabbled in this deceit specifically about "socialized medicine" in 1961 --- when the eeeebil plot of Medicare was imminent.
Notice that right at the start Reagan uses a quote from Norman Thomas conflating socialism with "liberalism". This is a fake quote. When you're selling deceit, veracity is the first casualty.
Author Upton Sinclair, who ran for both Congress (as a Socialist) and Governor of California (as a Democrat), noted the effect of deceitfully demonized terms:
"The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to ‘End Poverty in California’ I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie."
Sadly this deceit slugs on even today. Scores of posters on this board fling "socialist" around like so many turds, yet can't explain why it's a turd even while they use socialist innovations like the internet to fling them. Ultimately it's the result of the failure of critical thinking. Nobody asks "why", they just swallow any emotional hook that matches what they want to hear. Context and meaning and veracity be damned. Drones are led around by the nose by emotional bullshit and they go willingly.
Another example readily visible on this venue is the proliferation of fake quotes like Reagan's from 58 years ago and photoshopped images. Indeed there is nothing new about "fake news"; only its technology has changed. Reagan did it on a vinyl record; today we do it on Tweeter and Nosebook. But poisoning terminology has a long and infamous history.
your other hero.
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Ideologically they can be anywhere. Fringers like Wallace or centrists like Anderson. The point is that the system prevents us from having any choice, good OR bad, outside of the entrenched Duopoly. And that's why we always get stuck with voting for the lesser of two evils not to elect the one but to block the other. Duopoly KNOWS they can get away with that minimalist shit. And that's not what an election should be at all.
It should be mentioned as part of this that the Duopoly also controls the debates, literally. They used to be held by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates", a blatant collusion of the Demoplican-Republicrat Duopoly Party, formed 1987 to literally "take control of" the Presidential debates. This means that nobody gets to raise an issue that both parties don't allow and means they get to dick-tate who gets into those debates, and who gets asked what. That's blatantly antidemocratic.
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Ideologically they can be anywhere. Fringers like Wallace or centrists like Anderson. The point is that the system prevents us from having any choice, good OR bad, outside of the entrenched Duopoly. And that's why we always get stuck with voting for the lesser of two evils not to elect the one but to block the other. Duopoly KNOWS they can get away with that minimalist shit. And that's not what an election should be at all.
It should be mentioned as part of this that the Duopoly also controls the debates, literally. They used to be held by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates", a blatant collusion of the Demoplican-Republicrat Duopoly Party, formed 1987 to literally "take control of" the Presidential debates. This means that nobody gets to raise an issue that both parties don't allow and means they get to dick-tate who gets into those debates, and who gets asked what. That's blatantly antidemocratic.
I agree, but I dont like Italy and others. Look I despise both parties, but it's the best us flawed humans have come up with, just like capitalism and republican democracy......I do think we should see more third parties on the ballot and in debates, but Ibalso hate our current debate format with a 2 min answer, 2 min???? wtf is that shit.....
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Ideologically they can be anywhere. Fringers like Wallace or centrists like Anderson. The point is that the system prevents us from having any choice, good OR bad, outside of the entrenched Duopoly. And that's why we always get stuck with voting for the lesser of two evils not to elect the one but to block the other. Duopoly KNOWS they can get away with that minimalist shit. And that's not what an election should be at all.
It should be mentioned as part of this that the Duopoly also controls the debates, literally. They used to be held by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates", a blatant collusion of the Demoplican-Republicrat Duopoly Party, formed 1987 to literally "take control of" the Presidential debates. This means that nobody gets to raise an issue that both parties don't allow and means they get to dick-tate who gets into those debates, and who gets asked what. That's blatantly antidemocratic.
I agree, but I dont like Italy and others. Look I despise both parties, but it's the best us flawed humans have come up with, just like capitalism and republican democracy......I do think we should see more third parties on the ballot and in debates, but Ibalso hate our current debate format with a 2 min answer, 2 min???? wtf is that shit.....
Actually it's not at all the best us flawed humans have come up with, for the obvious reasons already laid out. By both you and me.
We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jack
son finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.We are, even if the end result was we got Nixon
The point though was, back to the topic, an example of the only way a third party can possibly hope to win the Presidency, by sucking off enough Electoral Votes from the D and R candidates that nobody comes out with 270.
We actually have a system where we can split our preferences to the point where the electorate's third and possibly fringe choice can get Constitutionally "elected". Quincy Adams got in this way even though Andrew Jackson finished more than ten points higher in the popular vote and won 15 more in the EC.
Yeah I agree, I just dont care about third parties much, they tend to be too extreme for me
Ideologically they can be anywhere. Fringers like Wallace or centrists like Anderson. The point is that the system prevents us from having any choice, good OR bad, outside of the entrenched Duopoly. And that's why we always get stuck with voting for the lesser of two evils not to elect the one but to block the other. Duopoly KNOWS they can get away with that minimalist shit. And that's not what an election should be at all.
It should be mentioned as part of this that the Duopoly also controls the debates, literally. They used to be held by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters but the so-called "Commission on Presidential Debates", a blatant collusion of the Demoplican-Republicrat Duopoly Party, formed 1987 to literally "take control of" the Presidential debates. This means that nobody gets to raise an issue that both parties don't allow and means they get to dick-tate who gets into those debates, and who gets asked what. That's blatantly antidemocratic.
I agree, but I dont like Italy and others. Look I despise both parties, but it's the best us flawed humans have come up with, just like capitalism and republican democracy......I do think we should see more third parties on the ballot and in debates, but Ibalso hate our current debate format with a 2 min answer, 2 min???? wtf is that shit.....
Actually it's not at all the best us flawed humans have come up with, for the obvious reasons already laid out. By both you and me.
Nope. Just that the parties put themselves over their country.
You are nuts. He's hated by the leadership of both parties.
