Comment by swed420
1 day ago
> Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain
Convincing argument you have there, but the choices we're provided between shit sandwich A and shit sandwich B are the problem, not which one wins.
1 day ago
> Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain
Convincing argument you have there, but the choices we're provided between shit sandwich A and shit sandwich B are the problem, not which one wins.
This is akin to arguing "nothing ever changes or improves in Liberal democracies", when policy history doesn't reflect that.
Large parties represent large coalitions, so there are more compromises and things happen slower, but they still happen. Not always for the better, as we're seeing when populists are elected.
> This is akin to arguing "nothing ever changes or improves in Liberal democracies", when policy history doesn't reflect that.
Ever-growing wealth disparities, eroded rights, mass enshitification in a race to the bottom, and widespread hatred of ones neighbor over fake outrage culture war propaganda disseminated from corporate media are not a trends of improvement. They are trends of decline, unless you're of the class who has their doomsday bunker on standby.
> Ever-growing wealth disparities
Higher concentration of wealth is not new, it's happened many times and dissipated many times. Real-wages are still growing, which is what we care about qua improvements in our well being (and what attracts immigrants). The key risk though is regulatory capture from consolidation of tech companies (much of this "wealth" in question is stock valuation, which tends to get reinvested in companies), but anti-trust is still a thing, and has been wielded relatively recently.
> enshitification
This is about consumer products, not government policy. Buy an alternative, you have those choices.
> widespread hatred of ones neighbor over fake outrage culture war propaganda disseminated from corporate media
Based on polling, the most salient issues seem to reflect economic anxieties. Even stances on immigration are really about that.
When the established parties and institutions fail, people lash out and elect populists. The populist fervor will wane once housing affordability is appropriately tackled for instance.
> not a trends of improvement
Yeah, not everything improved in the short-run, that isn't remarkable. Many things did. Look at real-wages, look at the extreme poverty rate globally as defined by the UN. I could go on.
9 replies →
This take completely ignores the amount of money in politics and that both parties have funding from overlapping sources which in turn represent how similar the two parties are on certain key issues such as the Palestinian genocide.
Notwithstanding that this sum is smaller than people think, seeing bipartisan stances does not in itself reflect a failure; it can just as easily be a good thing. All this reveals is that you have a pet issue that isn't being serviced well currently by the 2 parties, but tides and voter sentiment change; within a few short years most people have soured on Israel, and this will be reflected in forthcoming elections.
5 replies →
This is a well known mathematical property of first-past-the-post election systems, as opposed to evidence of your grand conspiracy theory
Maybe then the US should abandon first past the post?
I would support that, and there are states that have already switched to different systems in their local or other elections
It is a well known physical property of lawn rakes that one end is heavier than the other, as opposed to evidence my neighbor is abusive in hitting me with one over and over.
It doesn't require a "grand conspiracy theory" to know that dominant capital interests have the power and desire to perpetuate themselves.
But keep trying to wave the away the obvious. You only look more ridiculous the harder you try.
Just because its a Marxist trope doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory
No your choice was between a competent leader and a con man. When people type what you type it seems obvious you are attempting to avoid responsibility for choosing the con man. I blame everyone that has this "there was no good choice" bull. That is exactly what it is an excuse for blowing up everything and claiming no responsibility.
> No your choice was between a competent leader and a con man.
No, the non-con man option was an unpopular candidate who was installed after skipping a primary process. A primary process that was shown to be a complete joke during the previous cycle.
> When people type what you type it seems obvious you are attempting to avoid responsibility for choosing the con man.
I never chose the con man. Nor did I choose the party who manufactured consent for him with their pied piper "strategy" that was exposed only by wikileaks. Did the party reflect on this? No. They got mad at the person who leaked it.
"No good choice" in the 2020 election was a universal and sane opinion to have. The 2024 election was the thinnest electoral margins in recent history. You don't know something everyone else doesn't, and these inflammatory comments are out of touch with reality.