Wait, how did CNN get these posts? It seems like they were private. Reddit dipping their hand into politics again.
Most of the posts were made five years ago under Platner’s then-Reddit handle P-Hustle. They were deleted ahead of his campaign launch in August. The posts in some ways underscore Platner’s reputation as an anti-establishment outsider with unapologetically left-wing views. But the labels and tone used in his writings could also prove costly in a state known for electing political moderates.
In another Reddit post that year, Platner reflected on his life after his military service, saying he was “a vegetable growing, psychedelics taking socialist these days. After the war, I’ve pretty much stopped believing in any of the patriotic nonsense that got me there in the first place, and am a firm believer that the best thing a person can do is help their neighbors and live a loving life.”
These are the kinds of things traditional politicos would thing should cut against you, but in a modern environment the cut the other way (depending on how you are running).
CNN just trying to do the job of fox news from 20 years ago.
My bet is this amounts to nothing.
However, it begs a broader question, of who is actually associating their personal accounts with social media? This seems like the real mistake.
a firm believer that the best thing a person can do is help their neighbors and live a loving life.
Scandalous!
Is he saying communist when he means socialist?
He’s America, so he could be saying communist because he believes in universal healthcare and paid vacation time
That’s fairly radical he probably just believes that corporations aren’t people.
Cooperations are legal entities, and in legalese that is called “a legal person”.
That is the case probably everywhere. Because that generally is part of how you take a company to court, and hold a company responsible.
But only in USA is it taken to such extremes that companies have for instance democratic rights, which is completely insane, because that is not what it is supposed to mean in a democracy.American corporate personhood was used to justify their unlimited spending in elections as protected speech under the First Amendment (Citizens United).
Youre right a legal designation is probably fine but when your adherence to capitalism is so dogmatic you give democracy the middle finger…
Yes that is absolutely insane and undemocratic.
Lemmy Left: This American politician is wrong about what he is.
Communism is one of the systems we know for sure demonstrably is worse for the general populace than democracy.
Others are Patriarchy and dictatorship.Although for 50 years Americans have fucked up their democracy so badly, it’s beginning to look like it doesn’t matter.
But that is only until democracy is overturned, THEN it will show that democracy is obviously superior to the authoritarian dictatorship that is likely to come after.
Even a dysfunctional democracy like the American is better than any of the 3 mentioned above!What would be better would be to strengthen democracy, and improve protections of citizens, and regulate capitalism better.
All of those are best done with a functioning democracy like for instance the Scandinavian model that is based on Social Demoracy.Can you define what you mean by “democracy”? Because I hear this perspective often from people but never understand what they mean when they refer to “democracies”. E.g. the UK is seen as a “democracy” yet their government is clearly acting against their people’s interests by doing age verification shit and now raiding peoples homes for jailbreaking their TVs.
My perspective is that I don’t see democracy as any more virtuous than authoritarianism as a political system when elected officials aren’t serving the people’s interests.
E.g. the UK is seen as a “democracy”
It’s basically as bad as USA, and also a dysfunctional democracy. They even had the chance to change that in a public vote, and the idiots voted against it!!
A FAIR democracy is a democracy where all interest groups can have representation, although you typically have a lower limit of 2-5% vote to get representation.
And where every vote is counted equally, so a vote in 1 end of the country counts as much for representation as a vote in the other end.
And representation is according to the populous vote and nothing else.My perspective is that I don’t see democracy as any more virtuous than authoritarianism as a political system when elected officials aren’t serving the people’s interests.
Well technically it isn’t really a democracy then, because their job is to serve their constituents.
Of course the worse the democracy the more that can be the case. And USA is a very bad democracy.
Still even that was way better than not having democracy until the Republicans went full blown sociopathic, and was still rewarded government power.
Something I suspect will only happen in a very bad democracy without equal democratic representation by minor parties.
