Election Integrity

[Offthemat]

51 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Yea it’s not a numbers game or anything. It’s more self reflection and humility…I don’t like speaking on things I’m not well versed on or at least confident I have a good grasp on. I’m surely not going to feel like I should participate in something that’s going to affect millions of lives just because I can have a say. I didn’t say anything about ranking issues in order of priority…just voting on a singular issue (to me anyway) is selfish…and to a degree that’s fine BUT more importantly can take away from the whole of issues and possibly losing out on a candidate that would (as a whole) be better for America. 

I try to do my due diligence before elections, but invariably there will be judges and commissioners that I know nothing about on the ballot.  I leave those blank. 

[JimmySpeaks]

15 hours ago, mspart said:

Correct.   Look at the map, those are how the votes came in in the individual congressional districts.   That's what I think would be better.  

mspart

Have you done the math on what the electoral results would have been in the last election under your plan? 

[red viking]

After all these years of BS coming from the right, all the stupid pages on this forum dedicated to this subject and dozens of losses in the courts, the dumb wingers are still talking about rigged elections, without any evidence whatsoever. 

You all got duped by Trump. He started the "rigged election" BS, and you swallowed it from that con man hook line and sinker. Idiots. 

[Danny Deck]

47 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Have you done the math on what the electoral results would have been in the last election under your plan? 

https://www.270towin.com/news/2025/07/28/2024-election-every-state-allocated-electoral-votes-like-maine-nebraska_1754.html

[Simpleman424]

58 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Socialism is a deal breaker for me no matter what other stances they may take. IMO there’s no bigger threat to America and I’ll be voting for the person I think has the best chance to beat them. 

Well yea…I guess I’m just not taking that hypothetical scenario too serious in my head. And as soon as you say socialist it’s not a singular thing to me, its a group of issues.

[Danny Deck]

21 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Voting by phone or computer/internet would be even less secure than voting by mail.  The states that have vote by mail have essentially eliminated Republicans from winning statewide elections.  Coincidence?

90% of Utah votes by mail and Republicans have held all statewide offices and both houses of the legislature for 25 years.

[Caveira]

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Right on cue, in the category of “And there it is”…..

When there’s good conversation going on, people sharing their own thoughts and their own insights, you can count on Cav for the copy and paste what about, without any insight of his own.  

It’s a politician running on election fraud.  Stirring up his base to do what.   Come on here and say Trump Trump Trump stealing elections.   It’s literally the same thing boss.   And it’s working as all the left on here come in here and say Trump Trump Trump is stealing elections and crying that elections are or were stolen.  
 

Politics is a dirty game boss.   My team good.   Your team bad.  

[Offthemat]

5 minutes ago, Danny Deck said:

90% of Utah votes by mail and Republicans have held all statewide offices and both houses of the legislature for 25 years.

I’m going to say that “essentially” leaves a wide enough crack to allow for Utah.

[Simpleman424]

30 minutes ago, red viking said:

After all these years of BS coming from the right, all the stupid pages on this forum dedicated to this subject and dozens of losses in the courts, the dumb wingers are still talking about rigged elections, without any evidence whatsoever. 

You all got duped by Trump. He started the "rigged election" BS, and you swallowed it from that con man hook line and sinker. Idiots. 

Name calling aside and respectfully as possible…saying he started the “rigged election” thing is blatantly ignoring facts…you don’t even have to go far into history to see he’s not the first. Go one election prior to 2020 and well…that individual to this day still says it was rigged/stolen.

[mspart]

Socialism/Communism was tried with the Pilgrims.   It almost destroyed the enclave.   From Google AI:

AI Overview

 

 

Strictly speaking, no. The Pilgrims were not socialist. They used a temporary communal system called the “common course” out of financial necessity to pay off their English investors. This arrangement led to food shortages, prompting Governor William Bradford to abandon it for private property in 1623. 

 

The Pilgrims were Separatist Puritans whose economic system was shaped by their 1620 contract with the merchant adventurers in London. To pay for their voyage and supplies, they agreed to hold all land, food, and profits in a common storehouse for seven years, with equal distribution among the colonists. 

 

However, this communal setup quickly caused resentment. Healthy men disliked working without extra compensation, and younger men refused to work for the benefit of other men's families. The lack of individual incentives resulted in low crop yields and near-starvation. 

 

Recognizing the failure of the system, Governor William Bradford dissolved the communal arrangement in 1623 and assigned private parcels of land to individual families. This shift to private ownership and economic incentives drastically improved productivity and led to an abundant harvest.

 

I bolded and underlined the critical part.   Like all socialist systems, they fail.   

 

Well what about Scandinavia?

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-myth-swedish-socialism-again?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=85808169&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlPHCrc7mlQMV0hetBh2IWQHDEAAYBCAAEgKYmfD_BwE

I’ve written about this in a Cato Policy Report and I’ve done a documentary about it for U.S. public television, but people keep asking me. So I decided that I had to write a book about it for the Fraser Institute to tell the whole story, The Mirage of Swedish Socialism: The Economic History of a Welfare State.

And it’s actually one of the best examples we have of the benefits of free markets and the perils of socialism. Between 1870 and 1970, Sweden had a smaller government and a more open economy than most comparable countries, and that was the era when Sweden grew faster than any other developed country but Japan.

Then, when Sweden had already become one of the richest countries in the world, Sweden began to experiment with socialist ideas. From 1970 through 1990, government was massively expanded, taxes were raised, and the economy was regulated. This was not the golden era of socialist nostalgia, but more like an Atlas Shrugged moment: Swedish companies like IKEA and Tetra Pak and lots of successful entrepreneurs left Sweden and not a single net job was created in the private sector. It was the one moment in Sweden’s modern history that we lagged behind other countries.

After a devastating financial crisis in the early 1990s, politicians from both the left and right agreed to end this experiment. Instead, they reduced public spending, taxes, and regulation to get back to the growth model that made Sweden successful. Sweden started to outperform its neighbors again.

If Bernie Sanders and AOC wants to imitate actually existing Sweden today, they would have to liberalize markets in many ways, reform Social Security, introduce school vouchers, get rid of the minimum wage and most occupational licensing, and abolish taxes on inheritance and property.

I underlined the last paragraph for emphasis.   

 

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/

Depending on where you get your political news, you’ve probably heard of Scandinavian socialism as either the beacon of hope for the world or the worst thing imaginable. So, which is it?

One thing’s for sure though, Many commentators have clearly never set foot in the Nordic region and barely understand the Nordic way of doing things. So, let's set a few things straight!

Is Scandinavia socialist?

Actually, to start with, what do we mean by socialism?

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises.

That’s pretty much what Marx and Engels came up with in the 19^th century. If you’re looking for a country that matches this definition, your search won’t take you to northern Europe. The simple fact is that Scandinavian countries are not, by any reasonable definition, socialist.

 

In 2015, in fact, the Prime Minister of Denmark, in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, addressed the issue directly.

I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

So Scandavia (Sweden at least) tried it and left it when it failed.   They probably just did not do it right and should try again and get it right this time.   

The clear fact is Socialism does not work.   It removes incentive to progress, it removes incentive to work more productively, and therefore reduces the economy to a shambles.   That is the nuts and bolts of it.  

mspart

 

 

 

 

[red viking]

20 minutes ago, mspart said:

Socialism/Communism was tried with the Pilgrims.   It almost destroyed the enclave.   From Google AI:

AI Overview

 

 

Strictly speaking, no. The Pilgrims were not socialist. They used a temporary communal system called the “common course” out of financial necessity to pay off their English investors. This arrangement led to food shortages, prompting Governor William Bradford to abandon it for private property in 1623. 

 

The Pilgrims were Separatist Puritans whose economic system was shaped by their 1620 contract with the merchant adventurers in London. To pay for their voyage and supplies, they agreed to hold all land, food, and profits in a common storehouse for seven years, with equal distribution among the colonists. 

 

However, this communal setup quickly caused resentment. Healthy men disliked working without extra compensation, and younger men refused to work for the benefit of other men's families. The lack of individual incentives resulted in low crop yields and near-starvation. 

 

Recognizing the failure of the system, Governor William Bradford dissolved the communal arrangement in 1623 and assigned private parcels of land to individual families. This shift to private ownership and economic incentives drastically improved productivity and led to an abundant harvest.

 

I bolded and underlined the critical part.   Like all socialist systems, they fail.   

 

Well what about Scandinavia?

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-myth-swedish-socialism-again?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=85808169&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlPHCrc7mlQMV0hetBh2IWQHDEAAYBCAAEgKYmfD_BwE

I’ve written about this in a Cato Policy Report and I’ve done a documentary about it for U.S. public television, but people keep asking me. So I decided that I had to write a book about it for the Fraser Institute to tell the whole story, The Mirage of Swedish Socialism: The Economic History of a Welfare State.

And it’s actually one of the best examples we have of the benefits of free markets and the perils of socialism. Between 1870 and 1970, Sweden had a smaller government and a more open economy than most comparable countries, and that was the era when Sweden grew faster than any other developed country but Japan.

Then, when Sweden had already become one of the richest countries in the world, Sweden began to experiment with socialist ideas. From 1970 through 1990, government was massively expanded, taxes were raised, and the economy was regulated. This was not the golden era of socialist nostalgia, but more like an Atlas Shrugged moment: Swedish companies like IKEA and Tetra Pak and lots of successful entrepreneurs left Sweden and not a single net job was created in the private sector. It was the one moment in Sweden’s modern history that we lagged behind other countries.

After a devastating financial crisis in the early 1990s, politicians from both the left and right agreed to end this experiment. Instead, they reduced public spending, taxes, and regulation to get back to the growth model that made Sweden successful. Sweden started to outperform its neighbors again.

If Bernie Sanders and AOC wants to imitate actually existing Sweden today, they would have to liberalize markets in many ways, reform Social Security, introduce school vouchers, get rid of the minimum wage and most occupational licensing, and abolish taxes on inheritance and property.

I underlined the last paragraph for emphasis.   

 

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/

Depending on where you get your political news, you’ve probably heard of Scandinavian socialism as either the beacon of hope for the world or the worst thing imaginable. So, which is it?

One thing’s for sure though, Many commentators have clearly never set foot in the Nordic region and barely understand the Nordic way of doing things. So, let's set a few things straight!

Is Scandinavia socialist?

Actually, to start with, what do we mean by socialism?

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises.

That’s pretty much what Marx and Engels came up with in the 19^th century. If you’re looking for a country that matches this definition, your search won’t take you to northern Europe. The simple fact is that Scandinavian countries are not, by any reasonable definition, socialist.

 

In 2015, in fact, the Prime Minister of Denmark, in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, addressed the issue directly.

I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

So Scandavia (Sweden at least) tried it and left it when it failed.   They probably just did not do it right and should try again and get it right this time.   

The clear fact is Socialism does not work.   It removes incentive to progress, it removes incentive to work more productively, and therefore reduces the economy to a shambles.   That is the nuts and bolts of it.  

mspart

 

 

 

 

There's no country in Europe or the Americas that is purely socialist or purely capitalist. Modern economies are typically a blend of both, so this whole argument is a big strawman. 

The U.S. has drifted off the deep end to the right though, fiscally. 

Edited July 22 by red viking

[Offthemat]

18 minutes ago, mspart said:

Socialism/Communism was tried with the Pilgrims.   It almost destroyed the enclave.   From Google AI:

AI Overview

 

 

Strictly speaking, no. The Pilgrims were not socialist. They used a temporary communal system called the “common course” out of financial necessity to pay off their English investors. This arrangement led to food shortages, prompting Governor William Bradford to abandon it for private property in 1623. 

 

The Pilgrims were Separatist Puritans whose economic system was shaped by their 1620 contract with the merchant adventurers in London. To pay for their voyage and supplies, they agreed to hold all land, food, and profits in a common storehouse for seven years, with equal distribution among the colonists. 

 

However, this communal setup quickly caused resentment. Healthy men disliked working without extra compensation, and younger men refused to work for the benefit of other men's families. The lack of individual incentives resulted in low crop yields and near-starvation. 

 

Recognizing the failure of the system, Governor William Bradford dissolved the communal arrangement in 1623 and assigned private parcels of land to individual families. This shift to private ownership and economic incentives drastically improved productivity and led to an abundant harvest.

 

I bolded and underlined the critical part.   Like all socialist systems, they fail.   

 

Well what about Scandinavia?

https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-myth-swedish-socialism-again?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=85808169&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlPHCrc7mlQMV0hetBh2IWQHDEAAYBCAAEgKYmfD_BwE

I’ve written about this in a Cato Policy Report and I’ve done a documentary about it for U.S. public television, but people keep asking me. So I decided that I had to write a book about it for the Fraser Institute to tell the whole story, The Mirage of Swedish Socialism: The Economic History of a Welfare State.

And it’s actually one of the best examples we have of the benefits of free markets and the perils of socialism. Between 1870 and 1970, Sweden had a smaller government and a more open economy than most comparable countries, and that was the era when Sweden grew faster than any other developed country but Japan.

Then, when Sweden had already become one of the richest countries in the world, Sweden began to experiment with socialist ideas. From 1970 through 1990, government was massively expanded, taxes were raised, and the economy was regulated. This was not the golden era of socialist nostalgia, but more like an Atlas Shrugged moment: Swedish companies like IKEA and Tetra Pak and lots of successful entrepreneurs left Sweden and not a single net job was created in the private sector. It was the one moment in Sweden’s modern history that we lagged behind other countries.

After a devastating financial crisis in the early 1990s, politicians from both the left and right agreed to end this experiment. Instead, they reduced public spending, taxes, and regulation to get back to the growth model that made Sweden successful. Sweden started to outperform its neighbors again.

If Bernie Sanders and AOC wants to imitate actually existing Sweden today, they would have to liberalize markets in many ways, reform Social Security, introduce school vouchers, get rid of the minimum wage and most occupational licensing, and abolish taxes on inheritance and property.

I underlined the last paragraph for emphasis.   

 

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/

Depending on where you get your political news, you’ve probably heard of Scandinavian socialism as either the beacon of hope for the world or the worst thing imaginable. So, which is it?

One thing’s for sure though, Many commentators have clearly never set foot in the Nordic region and barely understand the Nordic way of doing things. So, let's set a few things straight!

Is Scandinavia socialist?

Actually, to start with, what do we mean by socialism?

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises.

That’s pretty much what Marx and Engels came up with in the 19^th century. If you’re looking for a country that matches this definition, your search won’t take you to northern Europe. The simple fact is that Scandinavian countries are not, by any reasonable definition, socialist.

 

In 2015, in fact, the Prime Minister of Denmark, in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, addressed the issue directly.

I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

So Scandavia (Sweden at least) tried it and left it when it failed.   They probably just did not do it right and should try again and get it right this time.   

The clear fact is Socialism does not work.   It removes incentive to progress, it removes incentive to work more productively, and therefore reduces the economy to a shambles.   That is the nuts and bolts of it.  

mspart

 

 

 

 

Well done.  The pilgrims story was a repeat oration by Rush Limbaugh on the day before Thanksgiving, for years.  
 

But do they have vote by mail?

[Offthemat]

France banned mail-in voting in 1975 — due to fraud

Mexico banned mail-in voting in 1992 — due to fraud

Belgium banned mail-in voting in 2018 — due to fraud.

Sweden does not permit mail-in voting.

Italy does not permit mail-in voting.

Ukraine does not permit mail-in voting.

Russia does not permit mail-in voting.

No middle eastern country permits mail-in voting.

No Latin country permits mail-in voting.

 

Snopes says this is “mixed” due to some of the countries allowing citizens abroad or special cases, such as the disabled, to vote by mail.  None allow normal residents to vote by mail because of the risk of fraud.  
 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/countries-mail-voting-banned/

Edited July 22 by Offthemat

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

Well yea…I guess I’m just not taking that hypothetical scenario too serious in my head. And as soon as you say socialist it’s not a singular thing to me, its a group of issues.

Far from hypothetical as it’s already taking root. The squad, Mamdani running NYC, etc….  It’s only going to grow in numbers.  So In your mind what defines if an issue is singular or not?  I guess I’m trying to understand why socialism isn’t a singular issue when others are.  

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, Danny Deck said:

90% of Utah votes by mail and Republicans have held all statewide offices and both houses of the legislature for 25 years.

What’s your point?  

[WrestlingRasta]

4 hours ago, Caveira said:

It’s a politician running on election fraud.  Stirring up his base to do what.   Come on here and say Trump Trump Trump stealing elections.   It’s literally the same thing boss.   And it’s working as all the left on here come in here and say Trump Trump Trump is stealing elections and crying that elections are or were stolen.  
 

Politics is a dirty game boss.   My team good.   Your team bad.  

When you can cite where Newsome assembled a group of false electors to change the votes of the states; when you can cite where he called secretaries of state threatening them to “find” enough votes to put him ahead of their state; when you can quote multiple members of his administration directly involved in the election telling him he lost the election to which he ignores to continue his illegal methods of changing the results of an election…..and so on and so on…. I will take “it’s literally the same thing” seriously.  
 

All the left is not saying what they are saying because of a couple of speeches by Newsome. They are saying it because of the actions of the president over the last six years. You are the hall of Famer of “my team good your team bad” and you have gotten to the point of being boring.  When you want to stop refusing the straight forward conversation on issues, without any what abouts or copy and pastes, that I continue to offer you, let me know.  Until then….boring. 

[WrestlingRasta]

@JimmySpeaks @mspart @Offthemat @Simpleman424…….great stuff.  Enjoying the reading (good driving break reads) 
 

@red viking….kindly move on to another thread 

Edited July 22 by WrestlingRasta

[mspart]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

There's no country in Europe or the Americas that is purely socialist or purely capitalist. Modern economies are typically a blend of both, so this whole argument is a big strawman. 

The U.S. has drifted off the deep end to the right though, fiscally. 

Socialism is the taking of the means of production from the robber barons to the people.   That is the basic thesis of socialism.   What you are talking about is capitalism and welfare stateism.   The welfare part of it is also a tenant of socialism by removing resources from them that has to them that don't.   But that is supposed to be accomplished by taking the means of production by force.   Socialism is not based on people not working.   People work in socialism.   The problem is everyone gets the same for differing amounts of work so the work goes to the lowest common denominator.   Those that produce more get the same as those that produce less.   That is inherently not fair and the system collapses.   

mspart

[mspart]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Socialism is the taking of the means of production from the robber barons to the people.  

mspart

A classic example of this is Venezuela.   Chavez took over and claimed the oil companies.  They were already state controlled but not totally.   This changed with Chavez.   He took over the oil production, storage, refining, etc.   And the oil production is barely running there anymore.   They were in the 70's and 80's the greatest economy in South America because of oil.   After Chavez and Maduro, they were not.   

Now it became a monopoly and nobody else could compete so there was no reason to do better.   In business, if you are not improving, you are going out of business.   Competition keeps everything within reasonable costs.   Hence the US has the greatest living conditions in the world.  Even our poor are rich compared the poor in other nations.   Our poor are unimaginably rich compared to medieval kings.   

mspart

[Simpleman424]

1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Far from hypothetical as it’s already taking root. The squad, Mamdani running NYC, etc….  It’s only going to grow in numbers.  So In your mind what defines if an issue is singular or not?  I guess I’m trying to understand why socialism isn’t a singular issue when others are.  

Socialism is more a political party than it is a singular issue. Republicans, Democrats, Socialist etc…I guess my question would be why would someone think it’s a singular issue? In the same way we have Republicans and Democrats we have Socialist. Maybe a semi unified belief system but all kinds of different ways to get there or to the degree they’re willing to go. The Squad had an ok following until they completely fell on their face…they can’t even hide their finances and hypocrisy. Mamdani is already flailing. And we have a generation on the rise now who already see right through the crap. You think it’s growing because people are dumb and following failing people…I think people have learned more than we think and young kids (high school age especially) have seen enough to say “yea there’s got to be a better way than this…even I know that’s not going to work.”

Edited July 22 by Simpleman424

[mspart]

I hope you are right with regard to the kids.

mspart

[Offthemat]

39 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

When you can cite where Newsome assembled a group of false electors to change the votes of the states; when you can cite where he called secretaries of state threatening them to “find” enough votes to put him ahead of their state; when you can quote multiple members of his administration directly involved in the election telling him he lost the election to which he ignores to continue his illegal methods of changing the results of an election…..

All these are wrong.  There were no “false electors”, they are called alternate electors, and they have been assembled and readied to perform their tasks many times.  In fact, unless you have a panel of alternate electors ready, there is no point in contesting a vote.  JFK won the presidency only because he had a panel of alternate electors from Hawaii ready when he won his challenge there.  The judge said as much.   A judge threw out the prosecution of Trump alternate electors saying there is nothing illegal about having them. 
 

There were no claims that Trump threatened anybody with anything other than possibly embarrassment when the truth came out.  
 

I think you’d find that he had plenty of people advising him that he’d been cheated.  Like any other situation in politics, you can find many differing opinions, but when you latch on to every thread hanger, convoluted , and twisted unrecognizable, it’s tds. 

[WrestlingRasta]

33 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

but when you latch on to every thread hanger, convoluted , and twisted unrecognizable, it’s tds. 

. Also boring, old, worn out, and in need of new material.  But I actually agree with this statement, just not in the direction you’re thinking.  

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

Socialism is more a political party than it is a singular issue. Republicans, Democrats, Socialist etc…I guess my question would be why would someone think it’s a singular issue? In the same way we have Republicans and Democrats we have Socialist. Maybe a semi unified belief system but all kinds of different ways to get there or to the degree they’re willing to go. The Squad had an ok following until they completely fell on their face…they can’t even hide their finances and hypocrisy. Mamdani is already flailing. And we have a generation on the rise now who already see right through the crap. You think it’s growing because people are dumb and following failing people…I think people have learned more than we think and young kids (high school age especially) have seen enough to say “yea there’s got to be a better way than this…even I know that’s not going to work.”

The department of education has spent the last 45 years indoctrinating our youth thru their college years. There are entire generations that actually believe shit is free and that they deserve everything while doing nothing.  The border being left open was by design to spread this movement.  Thankfully trump was elected and has at least slowed down the progression but that could very well end in the November midterms (Over 30 socialists have won primaries this year and will be up for spots in our government).  Yes the sheeples are stupid and following a movement that’s never worked in the history of mankind but that doesn’t mean they aren’t getting a foothold.   I hope you’re right about the youth you claim has learned but I don’t see it.   Again for me Socialist Candidates are the single biggest threat to this country and the Freedoms we currently have.  

[Simpleman424]

15 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

The department of education has spent the last 45 years indoctrinating our youth thru their college years. There are entire generations that actually believe shit is free and that they deserve everything while doing nothing.  The border being left open was by design to spread this movement.  Thankfully trump was elected and has at least slowed down the progression but that could very well end in the November midterms (Over 30 socialists have won primaries this year and will be up for spots in our government).  Yes the sheeples are stupid and following a movement that’s never worked in the history of mankind but that doesn’t mean they aren’t getting a foothold.   I hope you’re right about the youth you claim has learned but I don’t see it.   Again for me Socialist Candidates are the single biggest threat to this country and the Freedoms we currently have.  

Socialist candidates are the single biggest threat to the Democratic Party not the country…