Who do you think (not hope) will become the democratic presidential nominee?
Displaying poll results.17444 total votes.
The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam
The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam
It's too early to separate "think" from "hope". (Score:3, Insightful)
At this stage of the process, it's too early to make that distinction. Whatever reasons you have for "hoping" for one candidate, you can "think" of rationales, both for and against.
Obviously I should use my own favorite, Yang, as my example. Yeah, I know he has no political base and started with no name recognition, but the other candidates are mostly similar, so Yang stands out just because he is so different. Also, I think he is the most appealing candidate for certain categories of Trump voters, and much as I despise many Trump supporters, I do believe that if a significant number of them are drawn away from Trump, then that would be the surest way to make sure Trump goes down HARD in November. Trump is NOT going to suddenly become more attractive to anyone who is not already on board the delusional bandwagon. The minute the Trump Gang (of so-called Republicans) notice that he's losing support they will stab him. No honor among thieves.
And yes, I did exaggerate in one place. I should have said that I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who didn't make me despise him. That includes a couple of people who used to be friends of various sorts. And no pronoun confusion, either. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have yet to meet a female Trump supporter (though I've seen some on TV).
Re: (Score:2)
At this stage of the process, it's too early to make that distinction.
Not at all. You can hope Yang wins and still say it's most likely it's going to be Sanders. I hope for long shots all the time, knowing it's quite unlikely they'll actually win.
It's like being a Cubs fan. This year is the one! (Except since they won in '16, that no longer works.)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems typical of today's Slashdot to sound negative while apparently agreeing with the main point... Let me try to reword it.
Hope is based on faith and optimism and desires. Expectations should be based on data, especially historical data where it applies. You can think about hopes or expectations. The word "think" is pretty fuzzy, but even if the poll had used the verb "expect", I think it would be too early to separate hopes from expectations on the Democratic side.
I think you have hopes for Sanders, just
Re: (Score:2)
Hope is based on faith and optimism and desires. Expectations should be based on data, especially historical data where it applies. You can think about hopes or expectations.
No argument there. That's what I thought the poll was asking, who we would like to win and who we think is most likely to win, regardless of our preferences and based on any data we want to bring to the table.
My point is it's never to early to have both. I have candidate(s) I would like to see get the nomination (and I'm specifically not saying who he/she/it/they are). I also think Trump is likely to win the general election because, as you say, incumbents rarely lose. Regarding the Democrats, I voted for s
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... When I "think" about the current candidates, I mostly think in terms of how Trump will attack them, and their own attributes based in reality are almost irrelevant. I see major weaknesses in all of the candidates' defenses, and I doubt any of them will be able to do much about the torrent of lies and slander and vilification and demonization coming soon to an election near you. Perhaps Warren and Buttigieg are the best figthers, but I still think they will be dragged into the mud, which is Trump's na
Re: (Score:2)
I should have said that I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who didn't make me despise him. That includes a couple of people who used to be friends of various sorts.
this seems healthy.
CowboyNeal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody knows:
CowboyNeal had grown so rich, he wanted to retire...
so he took me to his cabin and told me his secret.
"I am not CowboyNeal," he said.
"My name is Ryan."
"I inherited the website from the previous CowboyNeal."
Too early to tell (Score:2)
Honestly, it is too early to tell. The highest possibility Mike Bloomberg, Elisabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden seems to make too many small mistakes (he is just too old).
Re: (Score:2)
The highest possibility Mike Bloomberg,
Given his extremely low poll numbers, it seems like he has no chance whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
(he is just too old)
According to the almighty Wikipedia:
So by a hair, Biden's the second youngest of the quartet you listed. These guys are practically all war babies in the great war and flower children in the proxy war. Bloomberg's apparently born on that most famous of V-Days (not the V-Day across the pond or the V-J in the Pacific). So I guess it's a case of made love then war.
Need to add Hillary to the list (Score:5, Insightful)
Her minions have injured Biden in the impeachment hearings and are now sowing discord with the Iowa caucuses fiasco. She's waiting in the wings, ready to jump in when the current crop of candidates burn out. If Bernie stays on top, the DNC establishment will have no one else to turn to.
Re:Need to add Hillary to the list (Score:4, Insightful)
My crazy 84-year-old mother is sure Hillary will be the nominee. I bet her $100 that it would never happen and continue to belt out booming laughter whenever the subject comes up. NOBODY likes Hilary anymore, but apparently this idea must be an effective time-killer in right-wing talk shows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a large factor in Boris getting a resounding victory in the UK.
Half his votes were the electorate doing their utmost to stop the clowns getting in; his appeal was being almost normal, despite his posh wealthy upbringing.
No "implode" option? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No "implode" option? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine being this full of hate, then wondering why nobody wants to side with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you feeding the troll?
And why did I let you tweak me into wasting the seconds to see what you were talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
All political parties evolve or die as the political and economic climate evolves or dies. You too will die, with or without friends and your precious political party as well. The GOP will eventually die. Maybe it will usher in the the Great new era of the Whig party! they're due for a comeback/win. But in all seriousness; I do want to suggest if you're life and political belief system is so grotesque and deep rooted that people don't matter if they don't agree with you; and that you wish death on people f
Does it matter? (Score:2)
They rigged their own candidates election last time. They apparently did it again with Iowa this time. With all the other things that have gone or been exposed to have been going on the last 30 years...I don't see how anyone could want to be affiliated with them anymore.
Re: Does it matter? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a republican or a democrat. I think I used to be a liberal, but now find I'm considered a centrist or a libertarian depending on whos lens i'm view through. TBH, i'm not sure what the hell I am.
Quite a few other things are pretty obvious to me beyond those two topics but in the end it doesn't matter, I'm not here to convert anyone. I just don't see how anyone could actually look in the mirror and call themselves a democrat at this point. Ok, you hate trump and the republicans and further right wing
Re: Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a republican or a democrat. I think I used to be a liberal, but now find I'm considered a centrist or a libertarian depending on whos lens i'm view through. TBH, i'm not sure what the hell I am.
Quite a few other things are pretty obvious to me beyond those two topics but in the end it doesn't matter, I'm not here to convert anyone. I just don't see how anyone could actually look in the mirror and call themselves a democrat at this point. Ok, you hate trump and the republicans and further right wing people. I get it, but I don't see the blatant voter schannagins that this party has been exposed of.
Getting aid from other countries to tweak or do something relevant to a parties interest, I'm sure both are guilty of (we also interfere in lots of other countries as well, so you might call that just the nature of the beast, lots of groups that self identify are going to help each other, it doesn't matter what country they come from. Just look at any hard leaning left or right ultra rich person from some other country and see what groups they fund...everyone has an agenda).
For the democrats though....Its quite another doing it so blatantly on the domestic side, and its not specious allegations, look at any voter party heat map and look at the upsets and you tell me. This isn't mental gymnastics stuff, its more like occams razer stuff.
I don't know what the hell I am any longer either, all I do know is to the Republicans I'm a RINO when I don't with them, and to the Democrats, I'm either a racist or a bigot, or I'm homophobic or transphobic, or I'm a misogynist or an islamophobe, and quite possibly I'm just an idiot when I don't agree with them. Why can't I just disagree with some of your political views without having every hateful epithet one can think of hurled at me for doing so?
Re: Does it matter? (Score:3)
I know who you are, you're Mitt Romney.
Re: Does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hillary/DNC paid Russians for their misinformation, then rammed down the throat of the US intelligence community by exploiting many career politicians (of both parties) that despised Trump and wanted him out.
The DNC caused an illegal investigation into the trump campaign before the election, then wasted 2+ years investigating their specious dossier after the election.
And Democrats wave the receipt for the dossier in the air and say it's OK, it's different, we paid for it!
Re: Does it matter? (Score:5, Informative)
And Democrats wave the receipt for the dossier in the air and say it's OK, it's different, we paid for it!
If anyone doubts this all you need to do is listen to the House Managers address the dossier [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
And Democrats wave the receipt for the dossier in the air and say it's OK, it's different, we paid for it!
Yes it's literally OK because it was paid-for research.
You're misrepresenting the issue here to make it look like these situations are somehow equivalent, when they're not. The problem with Trump's behavior isn't that he's looking for dirt on Biden, it's that he withheld aid approved by congress and conditioned its release on Ukraine announcing an investigation into the Bidens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Hillary easily won on pledged delegates
2) They actually changed the rules on super delegates because of people saying stupid stuff like this
Ditto for the GOP. (Score:2)
That is why they hated Trump so much. He trolled them and doesn't follow his assigned tasks. (Though he's dumb enough to be manipulated into actually wanting it anyway.)
Otherwise, it doesn't even matter if you pick Democrats or Republicans. They are neither democratic nor republican. Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump had the same policy on concentration camps (aka black sites, e.g. Guantanamo bay). What does that tell you? If you look at the actual actions, they are all the same, and getting even more similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Still with this craziness.
There is zero evidence that the DNC changed a single vote anywhere in the nomination process which would be requisite for a "rigged" election. Yes the DNC gave Hillary some support that Bernie certainly didn't get and sure, I'm not thrilled by that. To say that the race was rigged though is preposterous. The people did indeed vote for Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
requisite for a "rigged" election
Oh you naive fool. Changing votes is too obvious, too easily discovered.
You rig elections long before people vote. Just ask the former Chair of the DNC, she's been explaining just how the DNC did it.
Well, one of the ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, I'm the fool.
I noticed you omitted how exactly the election was "rigged". Please, enlightened me.
Whar does it matter? (Score:2)
This is like asking which figurehead to put on a ship with Satan at the helm. At least it's sinking! Oh wait, we're on it! Where are my two silver coins?
I really don't care that much (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't care who it is so long as they beat Trump, so I'll vote for whoever the frontrunner is and encourage everyone else to do the same, let's not water down the voting by spreading it out amongst a bunch of non-starters, okay? The important thing is to get Trump out of office.
Well, in a sensible country any one of them would easily beat Trump in the general election but we already know how that works thanks to a ridiculous election system and a well-oiled propaganda machine. So it really needs to be someone who people want to vote for, and won't just sit out.
It seems so far that Bernie is in the lead as expected with Pete outperforming and Diamond Joe underperforming compared to expectations. This probably down to the insane caucus system they have going there which overemphasiz
Re: I really don't care that much (Score:2)
Hillary lost to a first-time politician because she underestimated him and ignored several "blue wall" states - she got within 68,000 votes of winning... Really, REALLY winning California is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary lost to a first-time politician because she underestimated him and ignored several "blue wall" states - she got within 68,000 votes of winning... Really, REALLY winning California is meaningless.
Right, as I was saying, ridiculous electoral system.
Don't get me wrong, her campaign screwed up and lost fair and square since the rules were clear. But what I was getting at is that it can easily happen again thanks to a few states outweighing millions of people everywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
My vote did not matter, and won't matter this time either. Sadly, unless you are in a purple swing state your vote likely has zero marginal value as well. Hard to get pumped up under our effed up electoral college BS system.
Re: (Score:2)
In a primary, you don't have to worry about voting for an unpopular candidate helping Trump. It's a two part process. Now, you may want to vote for whoever you think will beat Trump, but that's a different calculus.
It will be Sanders and Warren (Score:3)
I agree with 538, and it's fairly obvious.
Biden will become our Ambassador to Lesser England.
Bernie=Corbyn (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm afraid Bernie is looking like he will win this one, and he will likely go down like Jermy Corbyn (whom he has publicly supported). There are a lot of folks who can't stand Trump, but are going to hit pause before voting for a socialist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because Bernie has been beating Trump in head-to-head polls [realclearpolitics.com] ever since 2016. And yeah, everybody knows he's a socialist. The problem is, Republicans have been crying wolf about socialism for so long -- calling Obama a socialist, for example -- that they've essentially made that word meaningless.
Think of the top ten or fifteen most successful nations, including the USA. With the exception of China, every single one of them is a mixed-market social democracy -- including the USA. The most visibl
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with the word "socialist" is that Republicans have waged a multi-decade campaign to label anything that is good for regular working Americans as "socialism" so it no longer has a negative connotation. Of course, it also no longer actually means socialism. When Americans today talk about "socialism" they mean a market economy with benefits similar to the rest of the developed world.
Re:Bernie=Corbyn (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a co-worker, former registered Republican, who DESPISES Trump and, before the race for 2020 started spinning up, would say 'Anyone but Trump'. Now, knowing that Sanders is a real possibility, actually says that he won't vote if Sanders is the nominee! I had to ask him twice and his fear Sanders is too far left and, if he wins and does things that moderates in either party don't tolerate, we'll end up w/ another Republican oddity in the WH. So, he has a point and it's something that really needs to be considered.
Republicans, or "former" republicans, were never going to vote for Bernie or any democrat for that matter. It's always going to be "oh I totally hate Trump but (abortion|mexicans|mah taxes)" before proceeding to vote for Trump anyway. The goal is to get the vast majority that sits out the elections to get off their asses.
IMO Bernie has a very good chance in the general. He's a populist and will tap into the same feeling of disillusionment that Trump did. Unlike Hillary's fans, Bernie's bros are pretty enthusiastic and will be more likely to turn up and get others to go. The polls seem to support this.
Although it's pretty ridiculous that you have to play these games anyway by not thinking about who'll be the best president but trying to gamble on who's more likely to get more votes (in a few specific states!) than the other guy. With something like alternative voting you could just list your preference in order (e.g. Buttigieg-Warren-Sanders) and if Mayor Pete doesn't win, your vote would go to Liz or Bernie.
Re: (Score:2)
The compelling argument is not that Bernie winning is an impossible outcome. The compelling argument, as I see it, is that millions of centrists and former GOP members that either stayed home or held their nose and voted for Bernie will do so mostly out of spite for Trump, and will not be obligated to pull the lever for the Dems again.
Choose whoever can stop Trump (Score:3)
Otherwise he (Trump) will be wanting to change the constitution so that he can be President for Life. Do you guys really want that?
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats have done too much damage with infighting and the impeachment debacle.
*Think*, NOT *Hope* (Score:3)
Warren is too divisive and everyone else is an also-ran, not a real contender.
Re: (Score:2)
If you voted for anyone other than the 4Bs (Bernie, Biden, Buttegieg or Bloomberg), you misread the question.
Warren is too divisive and everyone else is an also-ran, not a real contender.
I almost feel the opposite. Bernie is synonymous with "free healthcare, free college, f Trump, f billionaires". Whether one agrees or disagrees with those things, that's basically his platform. Bernie gets a lot of support on social media, but even if we ignore Iowa and look back at 2016, Bernie didn't make any waves in the primaries. I also submit that Bernie is so far to the left, that he'll have trouble keeping the moderate democrats or the fiscally conservative, socially liberal folks in his corner - fo
My take on the Democrat's hopefuls (Score:2)
Sanders beats Trump because he gets high turnout.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sanders is the only one who can beat Trump. Even though most Democrats over the age of 40 don't like him -- because most Democrats over the age of 40 are Clinton-Democrats... which are basically the same as 1980s Republicans.
Sanders will beat Trump because he is the only candidate who can -- nationwide -- get young people to come out and vote. When turnout is high, Democrats win. When turnout is low, Democrats lose. Democrats need at least 10 percent higher turnout nationwide to overcome the electoral college discount. The only one who will generate high-turnout is Sanders. And there's no Democrat who will vote against Sanders in the general. They all want Trump gone.
So if Sanders wins the primary, he's the next president. If anybody else wins the primary, it is going to be a landslide for Trump.
Re: Damned if you do and damned if you don't (Score:2)
Like they even know what comunism is... (Score:2, Informative)
PROTIP: We never had a communist country on this planet.
We had totalitarian dictatorships and oligarchies that abused it as a pretense. Acting like a "transition administration" for a transitiom that somehow never ended.
Real communism has no government. That is half the point. It is actually 100% compatible with libertarianism and anachism. As communes share, but don't *have* to share between each other, allowing them to live happily besides libertarianists and such.
It is incompatible with dictators who wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And there never will be a communist country by those standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Fallacy. Nobody has ever overthrown "entrenched Marxism" by force of arms, since the entrenched "Marxists", as you call them, always have tanks, APCs, bombers and better arms. With the possible exception of Afghanistan and other countries where a strong religious element could fire up the resistance, the best that has been done to undermine a one-party socialist regime is to force the ruling party to agree to a peace treaty and election
Re: (Score:2)
just like I heard that the Democrats are now blaming Trump for their Iowa travesty
I heard Republicans are blaming Obama for giving planet earth too much gravity.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, Jerry. Now I understand that Liberals/Progressives/Socialists/Communists/Marxists have a hive mind and all think identically. No independent ideas, no dissenting opinions, no individual worldviews, no personal experience - all just peas in a pod and evil as hell. That should make you a proud supporter of the Montana politician who says that the Constitution allows for Socialists to to be jailed or shot [thehill.com]. Now we can extend that to "the Constitution allows for Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Like they even know what comunism is... (Score:3)
The Iowa DNC is lying about everything.
For 6 hours it was quality control, then it morphed into 'results accurately recorded, reporting tool broken', then it became a systemic failure when the campaigns started complaining publicly, and now they say they are still chasing down results from precincts...
Everything they said is a lie, I know because they keep changing it!
Re: Like they even know what comunism is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
In my precinct, Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar all easily beat Sanders and Biden. Buttigieg had over 110 votes.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of precinct was that? Full of old people? Full of young people? Full of rational people that aren't geriatric or college students?
Re: (Score:2)
There are individual, small communes in many places in the United States. Such as:
http://www.thestrangeandnew.co... [thestrangeandnew.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real purposes of the Iowa caucus are (in no particular order):
1. Give candidates a fairly low-stakes setting in which to learn how to be an effective candidate. This includes giving speeches,
Re: (Score:2)
You still get delegates at the convention from Iowa. It does count for that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dear God when did Slashdot become Breitbart?
Re: (Score:2)
When was it Pravda ?
Re: (Score:2)
Pravda and Breitbart are the same people, now.
Re:Damned if you do and damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that didn't age well.
Obviously he isn't getting thrown out of office (unless they hold ANOTHER impeachment, since he was just acquitted in this one.)
At this point, I'd vote for a ham sandwich if it was the option with (D) after the name in November...
Re: (Score:2)
A ham sandwich would be as good as any other candidate with a (D) after their name. Probably better for the country, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
At least you could eat the sandwich. If you're into that sort of thing . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I think you forgot how the last elected president with a (D) after their name paved the way for Trump to get elected... twice.
I didn't vote for either, but one leading to the other was obvious.
Re:Damned if you do and damned if you don't (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
:-) Thanks for the laughs
Re: Damned if you do and damned if you don't (Score:3, Insightful)
Millions of Haitians disagree
Re: Damned if you do and damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Tried and failed to help? Really?
https://slate.com/news-and-pol... [slate.com]
And that's one if the kinder recountings of what happened down there. There's still a lot of unaccounted-for money (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) that even Johnathan Katz can't trace successfully.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
It's an interesting read, for a more-nuanced view of what has been (or might have been) wrong with Hillary for decades. Zeifman certainly didn't like her. Not one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think you can impeach him again? Good luck with that.
Re: Maybe hand the reigns over (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I give them all the respect that someone who did nothing to earn their wealth and inherited it from daddy deserves.
In seriousness, you can fuck off with your nonsense. These people aren't wealthy because they earned it, they're wealthy because they stole it. It's not redistribution of wealth, it's returning it to it's rightful fucking owners.
No need for a new tax or wealth tax. (Score:2)
Just enforce the old ones, and end the tax breaks they are getting. Cause that's literally in the same ballpark as the debt the country is making every year. Fuckin' moochers.
Re: Need a moderate candidate to unify (Score:4, Informative)
American "moderate" is *extremely* right by global standards. Your left is our right border, and your right is our across that border. The only country I can think of, that was even more right, was a certain one, more than 75 years ago.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No progress will be made until the baby boomers die off, primarily because with them will go the political power of the religious right. After that generation religion in the US takes a sharp downhill turn. Their power over candidates at present makes elections essentially binary. I can tolerate their backwards, magical thinking when they simply apply it only to themselves, but they insist upon forcing it on everyone around them as well and are determined to leave behind them a legislative time bomb.
I would
Re: Need a moderate candidate to unify (Score:2)
Classical liberalism and federalism was the common ground, with that out of the window there can only be culture war. The civil rights act and Roe vs Wade broke America.
No, we must unite (Score:2)
That makes no sense. Damage was caused *because* someone is in office who wants to "fix the damage" caused by the previous administration.
As you point out, all kinds of people live in the country. Left, right, conservative, and many shades.
Instead of tearing off in the opposite direction to "fix" things, what needs to be done is finding consensus and agreement and then building from there.
Change from uprooting what has been done and implementing a new direction does not stick. We have seen this attempted in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we need a far left progressive who will fix the damage the current guy is doing
So help me understand here, what is the nature of the damage?
Is it the low unemployment? The strong economy? The terrible shortage of wars? The removal of kangaroo courts in universities?
I mean, I do recognise some issues in the US. There are intolerant extremists damaging the education system and trying to destroy the economy on false environmental grounds, but I'm not sure a "far left progressive" will fix that.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Is it the low unemployment? The strong economy?"
Started under Obama. Goosed by tax cuts that ballooned the deficit he promised to eliminate. It's very possible the bottomless corruption and wholesale giveaway of our shared natural resources is also good for the bottom line on a temporary basis. His own government says the tariffs cost the US economy enormous amounts of money. He's engaged in one of the most socialist programs imaginable - destroying the market for a crop with tariffs, and giving taxpayer m
Re: Need a moderate candidate to unify (Score:3, Insightful)
The time he said Nazis were fine people.
He didn't, you know he didn't, and you can't link to a transcript that has him saying that.
He said there were good people and bad people ON BOTH SIDES of the Protest:
https://www.politifact.com/art... [politifact.com]
As soon as mis-quoted/mid-represented what he said, you removed all credibility the rest of your response might otherwise have.
Rose colored Glasses (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh what rose colored glasses you wear.
Is it the low unemployment? The strong economy?
The strong economy is built on Obama's 8 years of growth. Meanwhile, now that we've emerged from the 2008 recession Trump has refused to curb spending. In other words, what was characterized as reckless Obama spending on the part of Republicans while we were in recession is now being hailed as positive spending now that we're experiencing prosperity. That is shear idiocy. If we are so prosperous right now then we should be paying down the national debt, not giving tax b
Nah, elect the iPhone 20! (Score:2)
A perfectly featureless slab of glass the size of a window pane.
OK, as long as nobody tries to carry it like a boom box (iPhones in da hood!) and slices his arm right off!
"It's only a flesh wound! Daddy Apple only hurts me when I deserve it!"
Re:Socialism and Communism is Excellent (Score:5, Informative)
There are no Communist or Socialists running. Nice strawman.
There are social democrats running, but that's a different philosophy with a similar name.