Going to pointlessly do way more point by pointing then is worth anyone's time.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
You used the term 'bourgeois democracy' in quotes. We haven't discussed exactly what you mean by the term, but it is generally used to refer to the 'middle class'.
It meant the people who owned things but weren't aristocrats, which in the US is everyone who owns things. It didn't mean "people who make a middling income from labor" and was explicitly in contrast to people who labor.
Knowing this is not a requirement of course, but no one but you would waste everyone's time trying to filibuster with statistics about middle class in response to Pseudo's usage of the term.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
In fact, I highlighted members who weren't
supported by the money class before they were elected. Therefore,
it is possible to be elected without being part of or supported by the bourgeois regardless of how you are trying to define it in the context of modern American society.
It is the most classically deaddm incredibly fucking neoliberal blinders that you believe 2 people being in the lower house from poor backgrounds proves that really, we could just pull a 50% house, senate, and presidency of poor people tomorrow if we just had 400 committed hard working poor people who ran for election! Complete system blindness at every level.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
Regardless of how much money someone has, the most common way to get on the general ballot is by winning a primary election for one of the two major parties.
This is like saying that regardless of how old someone is you get on the ballot by winning a primary, so it's really the 12 year old's fault we haven't had a 12 year old president because they haven't tried hard enough. Having a couple billion dollars spent on your behalf is a requirement to be President. No amount of "winning the primary" can happen if you don't have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
Eligible voters are choosing not to have their voices heard.
This is the thing people are making fun of you for! Every time someone says 'literally we do not live in a democracy and people are intentionally making it so people can't vote' in your head you magically transform that into "People are choosing, for reasons of their own individual failures, not to vote. It's definitely not the people in power making this choice, it's the poor people. The solution is to lick more boot of the people who are doing the disenfranchisement and blame poor/young people."
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
I absolutely agree that there are too many policies that make it hard for voters (primarily in red states) largely because they recognize that full participation would usher in a socialist utopia.
5% was the turnout rate of New Yorkers in the 2020 Primaries. 23% was the turnout in NJ, where the vote happened so late that there were only two candidates who hadn't dropped out, Trump and Biden, who were running unopposed.
Nebraska and Wisconsin are at 35%, Mass at 33%. Montana is at 45% with Colorado at 42%. There are other states lower then 5% like Hawaii, Nevada, and Wyoming.
One theory, the deaddm theory, is that people in NY just hate having their voices heard, but people in Wyoming are being suppressed. Another idea is that maybe it's not actually "primnarily red states" doing voter suppression.
Also again if 100% of young people who aren't prohibited voted, they would still in fact not usher in a socialist utopia because 1) Entrenched systems make sure no one can pass laws that aren't approved by the very rich, 2) Even if 100% of young people voted, all the majorities would still be the people who were given millions of dollars to run, and a majority of those are always going to be stocks go up, cut welfare, genocide foreigners like you and Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, and Andy Kim.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
You are permitted to
volunteer so candidates without financial backing can compete with established candidates with institutional support.
This is again, a delusion. You cannot in fact compete in a senate election if you don't have tens of millions of dollars. You cannot be president if billions of dollars aren't spent on your behalf. This is like getting mad at 12 year olds for not running for President.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
So elections keep happening and your preferred result keeps not happening. You can say 'the system is rigged, I give up' in which case I guarantee things will keep getting worse for your preferred candidates and causes,
or you can participate in the democratic process using the 'rules as written' to create the change you want to see.
The people of France didn't "compete in the democratic process using the rules as written" during the French Revolution. The people of Chile didn't "compete in the democratic process using the rules as written" to get out from under the Pinochet constitution. The people of Bolivia didn't "compete in the democratic process using the rules as written" to undo the US backed coup. The Civil Rights Movement didn't "compete in the democratic process using the rules as written" to overcome Jim Crow.
You can keep doing the thing that definitely won't work because the system is explicitly designed to make sure it never can work, or you can do a thing that might work. The answer is not "the first one" but before doing the second one, you have to convince a lot of people of the reality of the situation who otherwise don't want to be convinced, because doing something that might work might involve getting fired from their job or beaten and arrested by police, or just because their stock market keeps going up and that's really more important then other people's lives.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
If your preferred candidates and causes
really do have a majority of popular support you can generally make them happen.
This is genuinely psychopathic. Like genuinely seek fucking medical help if you believe this. It turns out the system doesn't matter, because if you have majority support, the election results magically change to whatever you want. Silly black people, you didn't need to engage in an organized illegal resistance campaign to Jim Crow, simply vote in elections you aren't allowed to vote in for white people who hate you and eventually by the magical properties of popular will things change.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
There are a whole host of problems that I know we're all aware of like how districts are drawn to favor one party, but it's actually really hard to draw a district that excludes young people completely (much easier to do it by race, income, or religion due to how Americans are segregated), so I stand by my assessment: if young people participated in the electoral process to the same degree as old people,
we would live in a socialist utopia.
Quite aside from how it has been explained to you that last sentence is stupid as fuck.......... If you don't even know how the youth vote is suppressed what are we even doing here? You have extremely strong opinions on youth vote and you've never once in your entire life googled "how are young people's votes suppressed" and searched for an hour to find out what the actual process is?
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
So when I see someone saying 'nobody's vote matters', I NEED to say that couldn't be further from the truth.
It couldn't be more true. If 9 trillion more people voted in California it wouldn't change a damn thing in any election. If one year we accidentally burned all the votes in states that make up 95% of the US population and had zero votes from those states it would have no effect whatsoever on who is president.
That's the thing. It doesn't matter if or how most people vote in the 2024 presidential election. You just have to pretend it does, because as soon as you admit this truth, it becomes impossible to justify whining constantly about how everyone needs to vote for genocide as your defense mechanism for supporting genocide.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
Edit - Responding to Kaelik's linked article: I'm sure you think that the following quote applies to me:
To VoteBlueNoMatterWho types, any dissent - even sober, measured, loyal dissent - is suspect and must be snuffed out. Our leaders don't serve us, we serve them.
It's extremely fucking on brand that you read an entire article about how the president is supporting a genocide and assumed that I posted the article because one random sentence was supposed to be a criticism of you.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
I absolutely believe that people are entitled to disagreement and dissent and they absolutely should lobby for their preferred positions.
Oh boy are we all well aware that you support Lobbying.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
I also recognize that there are things that someone could do that make them unacceptable as a candidate no matter what the consequences would be.
But not genocide. That's still acceptable to you.
deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 3:09 pm
but my personal belief is that there are some major limitations on what CAN AND SHOULD BE DONE - like a U.S. military invasion of Israel to prevent the genocide strikes me as a really bad idea, for instance.
1) This is such a fucking cop out. The US is giving them bombs to do a genocide. The US is vetoing UN resolutions to help them avoid any consequences of doing a genocide. The US has parked a big ass carrier fleet off their coast and explicitly threatened every other country in the region that if they fight back while Israel randomly bombs them, much less attempt to stop a genocide, the US will instantly level their country. The US is engaged in campaign of random mass murder of Yemenis and already has US troops on the ground in Yemen in the hope that it will discourage them from causing shipping to or from Israel to have to take a longer path. The US is telling them which hospitals and refugee camps have a dangeous concentration of Hamas militants in need of some sky thunder and providing other targetting information.
Just own the genocide you obviously support instead of pretending that the only options are US invasion or genocide.
2) Why wouldn't you support US invasion of Israel? Why would you look at a balance calculation of 4 million deaths of Palestinians and say "well look, I think a US invasion that kills a few thousand Israelis and stops this would be going too far." The answer is obvious. Because you think Israeli lives are worth more then Palestinian lives.
Factually, it would never come to US invasion, because any pushback at all would instantly end this, much less the kind of "non war" the US imposes against Iran or Cuba or North Korea. But if it really was impossible to stop it in any other way and everything else had been tried, the reason people don't want to risk thousands of Israeli lives to save millions of Palestinians is extremely clear.