Patrick Ayers: Five Reasons Why You Should Join Socialist Alternative Right Now

From Patrick Ayers at the Socialist Alternative website:

1. We are helping lead the fight back against the 1%

Socialist Alternative is the organization that launched the campaign that got Kshama Sawant elected to the city council in Seattle. We used the victory to build a movement that won the first $15/hour minimum wage in a major US city, which has now spread rapidly across the US. We have branches in more than 40 cities across the US. We are workers fighting for a $15 an hour minimum wage and a union. We are students fighting for living wage jobs at our schools. We are trade union members fighting for decent contracts. We are teachers fighting for decent schools. We are activists fighting for affordable housing and climate justice. We are working people standing up to the political domination of the billionaire class.

2. We are building a political movement that’s completely independent of corporate influence

The political system is dysfunctional and awash in corporate cash. But, our campaigns for Kshama Sawant won without taking a dime from business. Unlike most politicians, Kshama kept her campaign pledge to fight for a $15 minimum wage, not by making backroom deals but by using her office as a platform to build a grassroots movement. She takes only the average wage of a worker in Seattle, keeping only $40,000 of the exorbitant $120,000 a year salary from the city council and donating the rest to a solidarity fund to assist grassroots struggles. Our victories demonstrate what’s possible if we break from the two parties and rely on our own independent power. We call on the left, unions, and other progressives to come together and run independent pro-worker candidates like Kshama Sawant in every city as a step toward building a new party for the millions, not the millionaires.

3. We have confidence that working people, people of color, women, youth and all oppressed people will fight back and change society

Capitalism faces a historic crisis. 95% of all the gains of the so-called recovery have gone to the 1%. While the 1% sees record profits and stock prices, we see record levels of poverty and inequality. Women and people of color are affected disproportionately, while climate change is made worse by capitalism’s addiction to fossil fuels. Already, we have seen the beginnings of a fightback with the uprising in Wisconsin, Occupy Wall Street, fast food and Walmart strikes, #BlackLivesMatter, and big protests against the Keystone XL pipeline. We believe this is just the beginning. Massive struggles of workers, youth, people of color, women, immigrants, and others are on the horizon. These movements will challenge this rotten system, and building a strong socialist movement now will be vital to winning more historic victories.

4. A socialist world is possible

More and more people are beginning to draw the conclusion that an alternative to the dysfunctional capitalist system is needed. Bernie Sanders campaign is showing the widespread openness to socialist ideas. More than 70% of young people in a June gallup poll responded that they would be willing to vote for a socialist for president. We call for building a mass movement around the day to day issues, and linking those struggles to the need to go beyond capitalism. We call for breaking the power of big business by taking the top 500 corporations in public ownership and running them democratically under workers control and management. This would serve as the basis for a radical transformation of society where we could plan the economy to meet the needs of people and the environment, not profit. We are in solidarity with the Committee for a Workers International fighting for a socialist world in more than 40 countries on every continent.

5. There has never been a better time to join than right now

There is a historic opportunity to rebuild a fighting socialist movement. Kshama Sawant’s two years in office have shown what a difference socialist leadership can make for working people. Bernie Sanders is stirring interest in socialism among millions, particularly young people. The establishment is organized. The socialist movement needs to be organized, too. Sign up to become a member of Socialist Alternative today!

56 thoughts on “Patrick Ayers: Five Reasons Why You Should Join Socialist Alternative Right Now

  1. jim

    Idiots. They said,
    “Capitalism faces a historic crisis. 95% of all the gains of the so-called recovery have gone to the 1%. While the 1% sees record profits and stock prices,”

    The vast majority of “the 1%” is simply the grandmothers of some comparatively rich families.

    “we see record levels of poverty and inequality.”

    Would you rather be ‘poor’ in 1960 or 2015? Actually,, worldwide, “poverty” is probably much less than 30-40 years ago.

    “Women and people of color”

    Stop it with that PC “people of color” nonsense. White’s a color. If necessary, let’s go back to “colored people”. They have to change their name occasionally, just like you have to change a baby’s diaper…and for the same reasons!

    “…are affected disproportionately, while climate change is made worse by capitalism’s addiction to fossil fuels.”

    No, THE PUBLIC are “addicted to fossil fuels”, dammit! If you think you can replace them quickly, go to the lab and develop their replacements.

  2. Green_w_o_Adjectives

    Wow great comments Jim. Your vast historical knowledge and charitable, humane commentary really raise the intellectual bar here at IPR. Only I disagree with you about “colored people”…..instead we should probably go back to calling them negroes (after all, we don’t want to allow black people to call themselves what they want or anything. Don’t want them getting too uppity.)

    In solidarity, let’s repeat our mantra, so that we’re on the same page and we don’t get confused…..

    War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

    Feels good to say it like it is doesn’t it?

  3. Wang Tang-Fu

    Jim wrote

    “The vast majority of “the 1%” is simply the grandmothers of some comparatively rich families.”

    Very interesting, if true. I had no idea. Are you sure? Where can I look this up?

  4. Wang Tang-Fu

    Jim wrote

    “…. let’s go back to “colored people”. They have to change their name occasionally, just like you have to change a baby’s diaper…and for the same reasons!”

    I don’t get this diaper analogy. Can you please elaborate what you believe the similarities are and why they cause changes in terminology over time? I know that diapers have to be changed because they smell of feces. Who or what are you saying smells like feces, if that is what you mean… black people? And if that is not what you mean, what is? My translation program may be making an error here, so perhaps a bit of elaboration may clear up the confusion.

  5. jim

    Wang Tang Fu: Translation programs will not possess the subtleties necessary to understand this concept. Give up now. Others already got the joke.

    And: ““”The vast majority of “the 1%” is simply the grandmothers of some comparatively rich families.””

    “Very interesting, if true. I had no idea. Are you sure? Where can I look this up?”

    First, I was referring to wealth, not income.
    This article is a good start: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2015/features/wealth_and_generations055898.php?page=all

    You can also Google-search ‘who are 1% by wealth’.
    ;.
    But I can also give you a ‘thought experiment’
    Consider that a population could be thought of as a set of families. Suppose a representative family consisted of a grandparent (often the grandmother) with assets of $1 million, two married children with assets of $100,000, and 3 grandchildren with assets of about $10,000. There are millions of such families
    If this represented “all” of the population, 1 out of 6 (or 16%) would own 90% of the assets, 2 out of 6 (or 33%) would own 9% of the assets, and 3 out of 6 (or 50%) would own 1% of the assets.

    (Don’t be a jerk, and try to be picky, and say this isn’t precisely correct. It is CORRECT ENOUGH to illustrate my point.)

    What this illustrates is that to a good approximation, a large portion of assets is stratified by generation, far more than people normally consider. The fools who talk about “the 1%” normally ignore this stratification: They want “us” to think that “those 1%” are “somebody else, unrelated to us”. But in many cases, albeit a minority, they are indeed our grandparents.

    financialsamurai[dotcom][slash]top-one-percent-net-worth-amounts-by-age[slash]

  6. jim

    Green without adjectives:
    I remember about 15 years ago, when the MSM (MainStream Media) referred to Hillary RODHAM Clinton. Not Hillary, which would have been sufficient. Not Hillary Clinton, which would have been more than sufficient, but Hillary RODHAM Clinton. Always Hillary RODHAM Clinton. Two names wasn’t enough, apparently: It had to be Hillary RODHAM Clinton. And again Hillary RODHAM Clinton.
    Have you ever heard of something called a “loyalty oath”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalty_oath

    This country had loyalty oaths, one example was in the 1950’s with the “Red Scare”. To get, or keep, one’s job in some professions, you had to sign a “Loyalty Oath” to swear that you’d be loyal.

    Stupid things. We got rid of them. But by the end of the 1990’s, they had returned. In order for the MainStream Media to prove their loyalty to Hillary RODHAM Clinton, they had to repeatedly refer to her as Hillary RODHAM Clinton. If you didn’t call her Hillary RODHAM Clinton, you were clearly DISLOYAL!!! So the LOYAL news media (NOT those Right Wingers!) had to call her Hillary RODHAM Clinton. And they did. Repeatedly. Again and again. Hillary RODHAM Clinton.

    Hillary RODHAM Clinton.

    Maybe you wonder why I am not so inclined to call people precisely what they want to be called. Oh, maybe I will call them by a name they once happily liked, but I will continue to call them that even if they dropped the name because they, themselves, got it dirty. The name itself may not be the problem. But the fact that calling them by some specific name may amount to a LOYALTY OATH, and that very much turns me off.

    I am NOT a “loyal PC droid”. Far from it.

  7. Wang Tang-Fu

    Jim,

    Sadly, you may be correct. Despite over 6,000 years of fine tuning by many generations of Wangs, and hundreds of years of incorporating English into our translation program, it seems unable to decipher most of what you write.

    I performed the query you suggested, yet have failed utterly to find anything supporting the statement that the vast majority of the 1% by either wealth or income are grandmothers. I did find evidence that they do tend to be older on average than the 99%, but nothing about the gender breakdown you suggest, nor anything about a vast majority, at all.

    If there is a joke in there, it has been garbled hopelessly by my translation program. Perhaps there was a joke in your other statement as well, about the smell of blacks? Perhaps you have a regional dialect that my program does not yet incorporate. It seems to do much better with the other comments left by others here.

    I did find the following thanks to the query:

    “Fed data suggests that about half of the top 1 percent of earners are also among the top 1 percent in the net worth category.”

    In any case I will have to beg your pardon here, as both of my grandmothers died owning little but a ricebowl and two changes of plain black clothing.

  8. Wang Tang-Fu

    “In order for the MainStream Media to prove their loyalty to Hillary RODHAM Clinton, they had to repeatedly refer to her as Hillary RODHAM Clinton. ”

    I see. So it was like when media refer to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, right?

    “Maybe you wonder why I am not so inclined to call people precisely what they want to be called. Oh, maybe I will call them by a name they once happily liked, but I will continue to call them that even if they dropped the name because they, themselves, got it dirty.”

    Please tell us more about how you believe they got it dirty. I would like to learn this history from you.

  9. svf

    “Stop it with that PC “people of color” nonsense. White’s a color. If necessary, let’s go back to “colored people”.”

    Good point, Jim! Much like you, I believe in calling a spade a spade.

    ” They have to change their name occasionally, just like you have to change a baby’s diaper…and for the same reasons!”

    Right again!

  10. jim

    Wang Tang Fu said: “Please tell us more about how you believe they got it dirty. I would like to learn this history from you.”

    Oh! So what you really want me to do is to condense 60+ years of American history into a few dozen (narrow) lines of text, text which you will then run through your English-to-Chinese language convertor, from which you will derive the complete answer to the question.

    I will start laughing now. I will be back tomorrow, if I’ve stopped laughing.

  11. JT

    Mr. Wang,

    Thank you for the perceptive question. There are a number of ways to answer it, all of them good. One could look up the crime and welfare statistics by race, for starters. But I think this short video says it all, and I don’t think you will even need to employ your translator for this one. These are just a small sample of the victims of black on White crime. Each of these names has a story, and I would encourage you to look them up to learn more about the behaviour of people of color, colored people, or whatever your prefered term is, that one might reasonably conclude sullies whatever name they choose to associate their race with after a period of time.

  12. JT

    Is there a PC thought police speech code for these discussions? If so, where might one see a copy of it posted? I posted a polite and reasonable response to Mr. Wang’s query, and verified that it was in fact visible from a computer other than the one I posted from. Now I return to find my remarks removed with no explanation. I said nothing lewd, profane or even hostile. Is my sole offense here violating the taboos of political correctness? Please explain, and please let me know where and how one might appeal such a distressing disruption of free and open conversation. You could, of course, simply act from the standpoint that “might makes right,” but perhaps you will at least consider what it means for the reasonableness of whatever drives you to choose that course if you can’t provide a rational explanation of your speech code and its underlying reasoning. Is it the idea that White lives matter that is so patently offensive to your sensibilities? If not, what did you object to?

  13. Jill Pyeatt

    I removed your latest comment because I believe you are our Nazi troll. We’ve been over this. If racism is all you choose to contibute, you don’t belong here. Maybe you’ll start working again soon, and won’t have time to troll us. That would be nice.

  14. JT

    Mrs. Pyeatt, we have indeed been over this. Please allow me to refresh your memory.

    There is absolutely no basis to claim I am a “nazi” or a “troll” (please share it if you think you have any). If I am banned from commenting here (on what possible basis?) it’s news to me. I am a pragmatic libertarian/conservative Constitutionalist and race realist, not a nazi, fascist or socialist of any kind. My ideal government would be significantly smaller than the one we suffer under today, especially at the national and international levels, but even at the state and local levels. Please explain how that makes me a “nazi” or a “troll” or why this viewpoint would cause me to be banned from commenting here?

    I don’t know who you think I am, or why you would think you know whether I am employed or need employment, much less why you think it is relevant to the discussion. I’m not interested in ad hominem distractions and wish the same was true of everyone else. How is who I am or what I do for a living relevant to anything here? It’s not, nor is it any of your business. If you have a substantive counterargument to anything I say please offer it. “My ouija board tells me you are a three legged dog” isn’t a substantive argument. Neither is “you must be a government plant because you don’t post your full name, home address and social security number with each comment.” Particularly when such a standard is not applied to all others who comment here! As for the time spent at IPR, today it has been approximately 15 years reading and writing, which would not exactly preclude having worked today, much less having a job. Are people who are in between jobs, homemakers, retirees, and those who have inherited wealth not allowed to comment here?

    Finally, I am not a racist, if you mean that I irrationally hate or fear any race. Every opinion I hold is backed by logic and reason and is open to logical examination, scrutiny and discussion. You are the one who is deleting comments rather than discussing their merits, so if one of us has an opinion that is not backed up by logic and reason, it isn’t me.

  15. JT

    My apologies – in copying and pasting an older comment I reproduced an error. I meant 15 minutes, not 15 years.

  16. Jill Pyeatt

    Okay, I’ll open it up to the group. I believe this is our troll. The IP matches up to another pseudonym earlier that was identified as our troll. If the community here wants me to leave these comments up, I will. If not, it would be nice if the other writers help me out. I really don’t want to be the only monitor here.

  17. JT

    Mrs. Pyeatt,

    The IP Address is from kproxy.com. Their homepage says (and you can verify this easily by visiting it): “Over 1,500,000 people use KProxy monthly for protecting their privacy and identity online since 2005.” Their system randomly assigns these 1.5 million people to one of their IPs, of which they have perhaps a dozen. If your basis for determining who you think I am is based on my IP address, all you have actually determined is that I am one of the millions of people who use the same web-based free method to help hold identity thieves, ad hominem arguers, stalkers, and other such disagreeable characters at bay. If these messages were, like in the old days, being sent by postal mail delivery, this would be rather like a newspaper rejecting a letter to the editor on the basis that the author’s postal address was “general delivery.”
    Incidentally, I do have my message that was removed based on this apparent case of mistaken identity saved, and would like to post it again if I can be reassured that it won’t be deleted yet again if I do. Please advise.

  18. jim

    JT: You said,
    “Is there a PC thought police speech code for these discussions? If so, where might one see a copy of it posted? I posted a polite and reasonable response to Mr. Wang’s query, and verified that it was in fact visible from a computer other than the one I posted from. Now I return to find my remarks removed with no explanation. I said nothing lewd, profane or even hostile. Is my sole offense here violating the taboos of political correctness? Please explain, and please let me know where and how one might appeal such a distressing disruption of free and open conversation. You could, of course, simply act from the standpoint that “might makes right,” but perhaps you will at least consider what it means for the reasonableness of whatever drives you to choose that course if you can’t provide a rational explanation of your speech code and its underlying reasoning. Is it the idea that White lives matter that is so patently offensive to your sensibilities? If not, what did you object to?”

    Thank you for your efforts. Above, you referred in one posting to a video (presumably one available on YouTube, the standard repository for Internet videos). I would very much like to see it. But so far I think it has probably been removed, presumably by Jill Pyeatt.
    Wang Tang Fu tried to bait me, or at least he tried to cause me to waste a lot of time. But almost all the time, it is far more efficient to find a pre-written text, or video, with which to make a point. Why duplicate effort, I say!
    I remember when I was first exposed to the disgusting thing which would later be referred to as “Political Correctness” (or PC, for short). It was in late 1976, when I had just started my first term at MIT, in Cambridge Massachusetts. The “PC” wasn’t from MIT, of course: They were far too busy with technology to bother with political nonsense. But if you are familiar with the campus environment, you know that people post announcements, and the walls of MIT were covered with them.
    While the term “Political Correctness” existed prior to the 1990’s, the actual practice which SHOULD have been called PC certainly existed by 1976.

  19. Jill Pyeatt

    Okay, I’ve pulled the comments out of trash so everyone can see them. There are a few still there, but I think they’re duplicates.

    Enjoy.

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ll say the same thing I said on Facebook: Just because someone has a different opinion than you, doesn’t mean they’re trying to be “PC”. It simply means they have a different opinion than you.

  21. paulie

    I’ll say the same thing I said on Facebook: Just because someone has a different opinion than you, doesn’t mean they’re trying to be “PC”. It simply means they have a different opinion than you.

    True. When reich wingers call something “politically correct” it is really no different in effect than when Marxists call something “politically incorrect.” It’s generally used as a club to shut down thought in both cases.

  22. Jill Pyeatt

    WS said: “No. Use of the term “politically correct” is to identify poor arguments based on whether someone else is offended by certain rhetoric.”

    That is certainly the case sometimes–once in a while, I suppose, but to assume it as the default position is wrong. Disagreements have happened for years . People simply have different views.

  23. Andy

    Jill, it is blatantly obvious that “JT” is one of the people who has been trolling here for years. Throw the cowardly scumbag out of here.

  24. JT

    Mr. Jacobs,

    What is the basis for your claim about me? Do you have any evidence that other people can examine that I have been “trolling here for years”? Do you have any basis to claim that I am trolling now or that anything I have said here is not accurate, and if so, would you care to share it here?

  25. jim

    I just found this, about Somalis in Sweden:
    “Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.

    Significantly, the report does not touch on the background of the rapists. One should, however, keep in mind that in statistics, second-generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.

    In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists, and have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted to have sex with six, seven or eight men.

    The internet radio station Granskning Sverige called the mainstream newspapers Aftonposten and Expressen to ask why they had described the perpetrators as “Swedish men” when they actually were Somalis without Swedish citizenship. They were hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn Swedish women to stay away from certain men. One journalist asked why that should be their responsibility.”

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape?anid=7

  26. JT

    Mrs. Pyeatt,

    I believe the link Jim provided is related to the discussion directly above about political correctness, #WhiteLivesMatter, and negroes besmirching whatever name you give their race with their own actions. Is that not obvious?

  27. Jill Pyeatt

    JT: I can guaranfuckingtee you I did not remove your posts to be “politically correct”. I don’t care at all about that. Saying that insinuates that I don’t believe your posts, JT/MS, were obnoxious. They WERE obnoxious, and I’m sick of thinking we need to tolerate racism because the right wing thinks no one has the right to be offended.

    Racism offends me deeply. That’s why I removed your posts.

  28. Andy

    I am more concerned about “JT” being a paid government troll who is here for the purpose of sabotage/disruption.

  29. jim

    Jill Pyeatt:
    Except that you define ‘racism’ to mean whatever you want it to mean. For example, anyone posting _facts_ that show any given racial group in a bad light becomes “racist”

    See Humpty Dumpty: http://www.nygaardnotes.org/issues/nn0156.html

    “”‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’
    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.'” [end of quote]

    Therefore, I think we should utterly ignore your pronouncements on “racism”.

  30. JT

    Mrs. Pyeatt,

    The discussion of political correctness in this thread did not start with your temporary deletion of my comments above (it was only one comment, singular). I am not MS, whoever that is, nor am I whoever else’s comment(s) you also removed. The issue of PC has been the subject of this thread from the very first comment on this story by Jim above. As I already told you earlier: I am not a racist, if you mean that I irrationally hate or fear any race. Every opinion I hold is backed by logic and reason and is open to logical examination, scrutiny and discussion. If you think my opinions are irrational please explain why. Perhaps what you think is obnoxiousness or irritation is actually a sign of cognitive dissonance if you are not able to rationally explain in what way anything I said is not correct? Likewise your rebuttal to Jim was not that he got any facts wrong but that his link was not relevant to the discussion, even though it clearly is. You can be factually correct or you can be politically correct, but you can’t be both. The choice is yours.

  31. jim

    Andy: You said, “I am more concerned about “JT” being a paid government troll who is here for the purpose of sabotage/disruption.”

    Of course, that could be said about any disagreement, of any kind. These days, PC is famous for trying to shut down discussions. If he is wrong, prove it. If he says something that is right, although painful, then heed these words from an early 1970’s poster:
    “If it is the truth, what does it matter who said it?”

  32. JT

    Jim and Thor are, of course, both correct.

    And Mr. Jacobs has provided no more basis to believe that I am a paid government troll than I have produced that he is one.

  33. Thor

    All these Syrians they’re trying to push on us will probably end up raping our women and establishing a caliphate here in the U.S. of A. My state is being overrun by them. Why is everyone afraid to talk about this?

  34. JT

    William Saturn
    November 11, 2015 at 7:32 pm is also entirely correct. And Jim makes another great point at 9:58 pm.

  35. JT

    “All these Syrians they’re trying to push on us will probably end up raping our women and establishing a caliphate here in the U.S. of A. My state is being overrun by them. Why is everyone afraid to talk about this?”

    Political correctness, cultural marxism and the anti-White agenda

    ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  36. Jed Ziggler Post author

    You could at least give Bob Whitaker credit for his mantra that you just copied and pasted. Unless of course you are Mr. Whitaker, in which case I would question why you’re hiding behind a pseudonym.

  37. Thor

    He needs to step it up. There’s a silent majority in this country tired of this anti-white government. Vote ’em out!

  38. JT

    Mr. Whitaker encourages for the mantra to be widely shared everywhere possible, with or without attribution. That’s why it’s a mantra. We need volunteers to get him on the ballot in Minnesota and many other states. In Minnesota, they will have a 6-week period in May and June of next year to collect 2,000 signatures. Learn more at http://www.robertwwhitaker.com/

  39. JT

    By focusing on his baseless and irrelevant speculation regarding my identity, Mr. Jacobs reveals his inability to deal with the truth of the facts that myself, Jim and Thor are bringing forward here. He should just admit that already. As his penance, he should work as a volunteer to get Bob Whitaker on the ballot and spend all his time online spreading the mantra from now on.

  40. Thor

    This article is laughable. Nobody even cares enough to talk about this Socialist whatever Party. We need a page of the reasons to join a real party: the American Freedom Party!

  41. JT

    Thor is correct. IPR should definitely increase its coverage of the American Freedom Party a lot more.

  42. Jed Ziggler Post author

    I see no reason to increase coverage of the AFP. Mostly because there’s not much to report, when something party-related is posted on the party’s website I almost always repost it. If you have any information about Bob Whitaker’s campaign or other AFP candidates email me.

  43. paulie

    If anything, they get more coverage here than any electoral activity they have had would suggest. Socialist Alternative has an elected city council woman in a major city who was just re-elected with a six figure campaign budget, among other things. A”F”P does not have even close to that level of organization and support in the whole country. Also, Thor and JT are just the latest incarnations of long time IPR trolls (Nathan Norman and Vernon), and that’s enough out of them. They are not welcome here.

  44. Jed Ziggler Post author

    As far as who gets coverage: if it’s newsworthy I run with it. When parties field candidates they get coverage, I really don’t care if they’re left wing, right wing, centrist, libertarian, prohibitionist, transhumanist, objectivist, commies or Nazis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *