Social Networks makes the American Youth Turn left and criticize capitalism.
 The network, election campaigns and American political thought
A survey conducted by Harvard University to Americans between 18 and 29 states that, in a 51% reject capitalism, real cornerstone of the economic system of his country. The data are consistent with the strong popularity of Bernie Sanders, surely the candidate who could be considered more "left" among US presidential candidates of all time, among young people in the same age range, or the increased mobilization of young people in causes traditionally considered activism - now reduced to "clicktivismo" or "slacktivismo" rather - on platforms like Change.org or Avaaz.  In some countries, as in the case of Spain, it is common to hear in some conservative circles that the opinion in the network tends mainly to support closer to the left thesis. Is there a relationship between the evolution of American political thought and popularizing the use of the network? in the survey of Harvard, most young Americans between 18 and 29 manifest rejecting both capitalism and socialism. But in the United States, the fact that 33% of respondents are considered closer to support thesis identified with socialism compared with 42% of young people who identify with capitalism, regardless of the concept and ideological arriving identify with these labels, it is extremely provocative, and could make the Senator Joe McCarthy himself should rise from his grave in Wisconsin to try to take radical measures. Profundizando on data from the survey shows that typically, the closer to socialism ideas are supported by young people between 18 and 20 years (41%), Democrats (50%), voters Clinton (54%), Hispanics (38%) and African Americans (39%), while capitalist theses are supported mainly young people with higher education (56%), white (43%), men (49%), Southerners (46%) or west (45%) and Republicans (54%). The data suggest that, in a hyper -connected society in which all information is within reach of a click to those who are interested in doing so, an increasing number of young people tend to identify themselves and take sides with regard not so much capitalism but some of the problems arising from its application: do not reject the economic doctrine as such, but issues traditionally associated with those based on the free market, such as inequalities, exclusion or lack of access to basic needs such as housing systems, food or health. Basically, they tend to reject the status quo, to criticize aparticularly strong they consider the failures of the free market, and meet a chamber suitable resonance when considering these issues in numerous forums on the net . There is both a critique of capitalism as such or the market economy, as is the way in which capitalism takes place today. But for whatever reason, the mention of capitalism on the network seems to have become less cool, somewhat awkward: even conservative, in fact, tend to use the term to criticize the so - called crony capitalism or crony capitalism. Tampoco seems to express explicit support for socialism and as such, the operation of based on that ideology systems, although it should be noted that the campaign Bernie Sanders, which describes itself as "democratic socialist" (with everything provocative that it may result in that country), and the great support obtained among younger, seems to be marking in a profound way the manner in which the so - called millennials approach a political thought that for several generations, seemed to have moved away from their conversations and interests. Now that a simple little bird pose on the podium Bernie Sanders at a rally makes almost a collective madness triggered. can we expect an evolution of political thought in the United States, real bastion of capitalism understood as such derived from the majority popularizing the use of the network for information? Is this just a cyclical effect arising from the approach of a brilliant campaign on the network by a particular political, or talk about an amazing drift for a country like the United States and could have even greater scope?  The effect Bernie Sanders, the "feel the Bern" which many see as a new Ronald Reagan left and the XXI century whose effect on young voters Hillary Clinton may have underestimated (and dedicated to trollearla on Twitter), you could end up in nothing depending on the complex US system for determining the candidate from each party.But even if it should not be the presidential candidate in 2016 ... you could get to make an influence on the political thought of the future of American voters?  So far, the network usage by US presidential candidates had essentially represented the supremacy of analytics. The campaign Sanders, however, exploits another factor, another set of values, another way to communicate, and applies it to a political ideas that traditionally appeared to be far from the thinking of the average American voter, young or mature. Can one significant number of American voters think be comfortable under the "socialist" label, consciously adopted by a political and communicated using teaching from the network? Arrive or not finally to the Democratic nomination Bernie Sanders, I think we're talking about a campaign that will It is studied for quite some time. Enrique Dans's Blog  Only Half Of Americans realize that the choice of system is rigged is Dan 27TH APRIL, 2016 Por Lily Dane "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If this happens, you you can bet it was planned that way . "- Unknown, commonly attributed erroneously to Franklin D. Roosevelt according to a Reuters / Ipsos, nearly half of American voters believe that the American system political parties use to pick up their candidates for the White House is "manipulated" and more than two - thirds want to see the process changed. Only half? You might think that, at this point, most (if not all) people would realize that the entire voting system is a farce. From Reuters: The United States is one of only a handful of countries giving regular voters a say in who should be included on the presidential ballot. But the system of state-by-state primary, assemblies and conventions is complex . The competitions were historically always party events, and while the popular vote has grown in influence since the mid-20th century, the parties still have considerable influence. A peculiarity of the US system - and the area in which the parties come to strengthen their power - is the use of delegates, party members who are assigned to support contenders in their respective conventions, is generally based on results the vote. The parties decide how delegates are awarded in each state, with Republicans and Democrats have different rules.personal opinions of the delegates may come into play at the party conventions if the race is too close to call - an issue that has become a lightning rod in the current political season. Another complication is that state governments have different rules on whether voters should be registered as party members to participate. In some states, parties still restrict selection of delegates to small committees of party elites, as the Republican Party in Colorado He made this year. In other words: the establishment selects two candidates and "allow" us tochoose them on election day. And the third in discord? Forget this. The mainstream media largely ignores. They suggest vote for one, and most Americans will tell you that you're Unfortunately, not wrong "wasting your vote." The elite will never allow a candidate from a third party other than the system has a real opportunity presidency.In the recent article The system is rigged: Widespread dissatisfaction among American voters, The Guardian says: Increased anti-system candidates Sanders and Trump has highlighted the mess of rules and processes deliberately designed to keep these candidates clinching the nomination. For these voters, and many more across the political spectrum just awakening to the basic rules of the game-high stakes in the country, primaries may seem terribly unfair. The Guardian also surveyed Americans to ask what they think about the election system. More than 300 readers responded, and many expressed doubts about the way in which parties select candidates, describing the modern primary process as "manipulated", "undemocratic" and a "farce". Your comments are very revealing:  "Why states, party organizations and voters to go through all the hype, the cost and time to have a party poobahs primary when making the final decision?" - Don Grafues "Now we have the real bases, anti-establishment, populist candidates on both sides [Sanders and Trump], the political machine is in the way the total to maintain the status quo survival Party leaders feel a threat. real and direct campaigns ... and the two major parties will use all the tools they have to block what they feel is a threat to their own existence. "- Chris Ritz" the reason I have never voted is because I thought that corruption thought maybe I was wrong or unfair, but it is [the electoral process this year] kind of makes me think that there is a lot of corruption and his voice does not count "-.. Wendy Kranmer earlier this month, RT discussed election fraud with Dr. Ron Paul, who called the "rotten" system and a "farce"  in the article "the illusion of choice , " says Bernhard Guenther ... As the saying goes , "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." In unponerized society with a corrupt political system, good intention, hope and the vote will not lead to positive change, but simply an illusion and denial. There are no free elections in this country. There has been a long time. The voting system is a fraud sold to the public to give the illusion of choice. The same applies to the two - party setup. Democrats and Republicans. Back and forth. Two sides of the same coin .Despite popular belief they do not really live in a democracy. People are so caught up in this vision of left / right tunnel do not see how they are being deceived and played with. Elections are nonsense. They serve to maintain the illusion that we actually have a say in the selection of a new master every four years. Participation in this system gives validity - voters are giving permission to keep the current system in place. Lily Dane is a staff writer for the Daily Sheeple. Its aim is to help people to "Wake up the Flock!"
 The network, election campaigns and American political thought
A survey conducted by Harvard University to Americans between 18 and 29 states that, in a 51% reject capitalism, real cornerstone of the economic system of his country. The data are consistent with the strong popularity of Bernie Sanders, surely the candidate who could be considered more "left" among US presidential candidates of all time, among young people in the same age range, or the increased mobilization of young people in causes traditionally considered activism - now reduced to "clicktivismo" or "slacktivismo" rather - on platforms like Change.org or Avaaz.  In some countries, as in the case of Spain, it is common to hear in some conservative circles that the opinion in the network tends mainly to support closer to the left thesis. Is there a relationship between the evolution of American political thought and popularizing the use of the network? in the survey of Harvard, most young Americans between 18 and 29 manifest rejecting both capitalism and socialism. But in the United States, the fact that 33% of respondents are considered closer to support thesis identified with socialism compared with 42% of young people who identify with capitalism, regardless of the concept and ideological arriving identify with these labels, it is extremely provocative, and could make the Senator Joe McCarthy himself should rise from his grave in Wisconsin to try to take radical measures. Profundizando on data from the survey shows that typically, the closer to socialism ideas are supported by young people between 18 and 20 years (41%), Democrats (50%), voters Clinton (54%), Hispanics (38%) and African Americans (39%), while capitalist theses are supported mainly young people with higher education (56%), white (43%), men (49%), Southerners (46%) or west (45%) and Republicans (54%). The data suggest that, in a hyper -connected society in which all information is within reach of a click to those who are interested in doing so, an increasing number of young people tend to identify themselves and take sides with regard not so much capitalism but some of the problems arising from its application: do not reject the economic doctrine as such, but issues traditionally associated with those based on the free market, such as inequalities, exclusion or lack of access to basic needs such as housing systems, food or health. Basically, they tend to reject the status quo, to criticize aparticularly strong they consider the failures of the free market, and meet a chamber suitable resonance when considering these issues in numerous forums on the net . There is both a critique of capitalism as such or the market economy, as is the way in which capitalism takes place today. But for whatever reason, the mention of capitalism on the network seems to have become less cool, somewhat awkward: even conservative, in fact, tend to use the term to criticize the so - called crony capitalism or crony capitalism. Tampoco seems to express explicit support for socialism and as such, the operation of based on that ideology systems, although it should be noted that the campaign Bernie Sanders, which describes itself as "democratic socialist" (with everything provocative that it may result in that country), and the great support obtained among younger, seems to be marking in a profound way the manner in which the so - called millennials approach a political thought that for several generations, seemed to have moved away from their conversations and interests. Now that a simple little bird pose on the podium Bernie Sanders at a rally makes almost a collective madness triggered. can we expect an evolution of political thought in the United States, real bastion of capitalism understood as such derived from the majority popularizing the use of the network for information? Is this just a cyclical effect arising from the approach of a brilliant campaign on the network by a particular political, or talk about an amazing drift for a country like the United States and could have even greater scope?  The effect Bernie Sanders, the "feel the Bern" which many see as a new Ronald Reagan left and the XXI century whose effect on young voters Hillary Clinton may have underestimated (and dedicated to trollearla on Twitter), you could end up in nothing depending on the complex US system for determining the candidate from each party.But even if it should not be the presidential candidate in 2016 ... you could get to make an influence on the political thought of the future of American voters?  So far, the network usage by US presidential candidates had essentially represented the supremacy of analytics. The campaign Sanders, however, exploits another factor, another set of values, another way to communicate, and applies it to a political ideas that traditionally appeared to be far from the thinking of the average American voter, young or mature. Can one significant number of American voters think be comfortable under the "socialist" label, consciously adopted by a political and communicated using teaching from the network? Arrive or not finally to the Democratic nomination Bernie Sanders, I think we're talking about a campaign that will It is studied for quite some time. Enrique Dans's Blog  Only Half Of Americans realize that the choice of system is rigged is Dan 27TH APRIL, 2016 Por Lily Dane "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If this happens, you you can bet it was planned that way . "- Unknown, commonly attributed erroneously to Franklin D. Roosevelt according to a Reuters / Ipsos, nearly half of American voters believe that the American system political parties use to pick up their candidates for the White House is "manipulated" and more than two - thirds want to see the process changed. Only half? You might think that, at this point, most (if not all) people would realize that the entire voting system is a farce. From Reuters: The United States is one of only a handful of countries giving regular voters a say in who should be included on the presidential ballot. But the system of state-by-state primary, assemblies and conventions is complex . The competitions were historically always party events, and while the popular vote has grown in influence since the mid-20th century, the parties still have considerable influence. A peculiarity of the US system - and the area in which the parties come to strengthen their power - is the use of delegates, party members who are assigned to support contenders in their respective conventions, is generally based on results the vote. The parties decide how delegates are awarded in each state, with Republicans and Democrats have different rules.personal opinions of the delegates may come into play at the party conventions if the race is too close to call - an issue that has become a lightning rod in the current political season. Another complication is that state governments have different rules on whether voters should be registered as party members to participate. In some states, parties still restrict selection of delegates to small committees of party elites, as the Republican Party in Colorado He made this year. In other words: the establishment selects two candidates and "allow" us tochoose them on election day. And the third in discord? Forget this. The mainstream media largely ignores. They suggest vote for one, and most Americans will tell you that you're Unfortunately, not wrong "wasting your vote." The elite will never allow a candidate from a third party other than the system has a real opportunity presidency.In the recent article The system is rigged: Widespread dissatisfaction among American voters, The Guardian says: Increased anti-system candidates Sanders and Trump has highlighted the mess of rules and processes deliberately designed to keep these candidates clinching the nomination. For these voters, and many more across the political spectrum just awakening to the basic rules of the game-high stakes in the country, primaries may seem terribly unfair. The Guardian also surveyed Americans to ask what they think about the election system. More than 300 readers responded, and many expressed doubts about the way in which parties select candidates, describing the modern primary process as "manipulated", "undemocratic" and a "farce". Your comments are very revealing:  "Why states, party organizations and voters to go through all the hype, the cost and time to have a party poobahs primary when making the final decision?" - Don Grafues "Now we have the real bases, anti-establishment, populist candidates on both sides [Sanders and Trump], the political machine is in the way the total to maintain the status quo survival Party leaders feel a threat. real and direct campaigns ... and the two major parties will use all the tools they have to block what they feel is a threat to their own existence. "- Chris Ritz" the reason I have never voted is because I thought that corruption thought maybe I was wrong or unfair, but it is [the electoral process this year] kind of makes me think that there is a lot of corruption and his voice does not count "-.. Wendy Kranmer earlier this month, RT discussed election fraud with Dr. Ron Paul, who called the "rotten" system and a "farce"  in the article "the illusion of choice , " says Bernhard Guenther ... As the saying goes , "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." In unponerized society with a corrupt political system, good intention, hope and the vote will not lead to positive change, but simply an illusion and denial. There are no free elections in this country. There has been a long time. The voting system is a fraud sold to the public to give the illusion of choice. The same applies to the two - party setup. Democrats and Republicans. Back and forth. Two sides of the same coin .Despite popular belief they do not really live in a democracy. People are so caught up in this vision of left / right tunnel do not see how they are being deceived and played with. Elections are nonsense. They serve to maintain the illusion that we actually have a say in the selection of a new master every four years. Participation in this system gives validity - voters are giving permission to keep the current system in place. Lily Dane is a staff writer for the Daily Sheeple. Its aim is to help people to "Wake up the Flock!"
activistpost.com
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
No se admiten comentarios con datos personales como teléfonos, direcciones o publicidad encubierta