Your democratic processes are already crippled. Trump and Bush both lost but were still elected president. Many of your states engage in voter suppression. Your corporations have captured legislative responsibilities like tax law. Your legislature is a rubber stamp or a roadblock. Your courts are full of political appointees, many without term limits or proper vetting.
Democracy, as a tool, has been made blunt by capitalist and military interests. This is precisely why it's so heavily promoted as part of the american national identity - so people can, in 2021, try to claim that /maybe next election/, if we ask nicely, the US government will stop yeeting Afghani children into 100 pieces.
> There's a very specific reason it [the electoral college] exists.
There are valid historical reasons for it, but it's a bit anti-democratic just the same. The rules which give more representation per capita to residents of less populated states were implemented to appease those states' governments and encourage them to join the union. However, it detracts somewhat from the ideal of "one person, one vote" when a voter in Wyoming (with three electors for 532k residents[1]) has the same influence as four voters in Texas (34 electors for 24.3M residents[1]).
On the other hand, the real issue has less do with how the President is elected and more to do with the excessive influence the President exercises over the government as a whole—particularly the Legislative and Judicial branches—and the ever-more-intrusive power and influence of the federal government in general.
> > Democracy, as a tool, has been made blunt by capitalist and military interests.
> Yes because it's made great by communists????
Special interests turning the power of government to their own ends is a problem whether those interests are communist, capitalist, or socialist in nature, or something else altogether. The law should be just and not merely a tool for those who own capital to oppress the rest of society—and of course the same goes for those who would seize others' capital for their own use, whether noble or mundane.
Unfortunately, the interests of capitalists (i.e., owners of capital) are not always aligned with capitalism—which requires upholding everyone's natural rights, whether they own capital or not—and often would be better described as plutocratic and authoritarian (rule by those with the most money). One may oppose "capitalist interests" while upholding the principles of capitalism; there is no conflict.
>If you've missed the voter suppression thus far, you and I both know that you won't listen to any evidence or argument otherwise.
I want specific examples. Shouldn't be hard if it's so prevalent.
>They are claiming the electoral college is undemocratic. Which it is, by the very definition
Yeah we're a republic. Do you know why? Because it protects the minority. You might want to consider what happens when you're inevitably in the minority at some point. Unless you just assume that you're going to agree with everything the population centers in the coastal areas want?
>There are many more ideologies than capitalist and communist. The world is not black and white.
Yep thanks for proving my point. OP's comment WAS black and white. He blamed it specifically on capitalism. It's a power issue not a capitalism issue. Historically capitalism is much less likely to end up with the power in the hands of the few than any other economic system.
Democracy and republic are not incompatible, you don't know what republic means (or democracy for that matter), and the only minority it protects is the wealthy. Furthermore, the person you replied to was replying to a comment which stated, and I quote, "How about simply fix the laws through Democratic processes".
OP's comment was NOT black and white. They did NOT say Communism was the solution. You, however, assumed that was what they meant, and proceeded to use that as a basis to attack their position, despite providing zero evidence to back up your attack - even if they HAD said Communism was the solution.
As your entire comment history is bad-faith, I'm done with this thread. Bye-bye.
Ahhh the ol' voter ID is racist. How do you feel about vaccine passports then? Because the same people pushing the ID rhetoric are in full support of forcing minorities to carry a passport around.... which requires ID to verify. Can you explain the double-think on this one?
>No, you have either already seen and dismissed many, many specific examples, or are simply willfully ignorant.
Also, can you can stop with the inflammatory responses and act like an adult please? There's no reason providing evidence for your stances should upset you so much. Do you want to change my mind or just play a game of internet gotcha?
> Ahhh the ol' voter ID is racist. How do you feel about vaccine passports then? Because the same people pushing the ID rhetoric
When you say the people pushing the ID rhetoric, are you talking about the people actually sponsoring the voter ID proposals who keep getting caught using the intended racist and partisan effects of voter ID laws as selling points of those laws when they think only allies are listening, or the people pointing that out to the general public? Because both are pushing the same narrative, but to different audiences.
>voter ID laws as selling points of those laws when they think only allies are listening, or the people pointing that out to the general public? Because both are pushing the same narrative, but to different audiences.
I really don't understand what this means...
Left claims voter ID racist because minorities are unable to obtain an ID. They claim they're too dumb, too poor, can't use the internet and a variety of other racist things that apparently aren't racist because the left said them and not the right.
They then turn around and claim vaccine passports should be mandated. How do you verify a vaccine passport is legit? Guess what you need a government ID.
What group has the lowest vaccination rates in this country? Are ID requirements racist or not? You cannot claim they're racist and then turn around and change your stance when it comes to vaccine passports.
> Left claims voter ID racist because minorities are unable to obtain an ID
No, the center-right-to-center-left coalition party claims concrete voter ID proposals are racist, partisan efforts by right-to-far-right coalition party because proponents of voter ID laws keep getting caught in venues that are viewed as friendly to their partisan alignment promoting voter ID as a tool to keep people of the “wrong” race and party from voting.
Its true that the former party also, in certain cases where this has occurred, points out access issues that the latter party deliberately creates in parallel with the voter ID effort as part of the mechanism by which the racist, partisan goal is acheived.
Of course not, this is just the parent poster's opinion. The truth of the matter is that there exceptional individuals who decide to get into software development and software security. The problem with software is that often companies don't invest into securing their software, and that has to be a priority. Perhaps having the SEC force fines for not securing mission critical software is the first step?
Magic mushrooms are now being used to treat anxiety. Just something to consider when dealing with a situation that creates massive amounts of anxiety (being stuck in ice with no way out).
I am really not sure I'd want to be stuck in ice, ON ACID, with no way out :)
…though I think your point is, that while you're stuck in ice with no way out, all the mental stability structures you build to connect yourself to reality are bad and harmful. And being on drugs and disrupting your reality, breaking down your preconceptions etc. would be more along the lines of continually breaking down the BAD mental structures you're inevitably building, due to correct appraisal of your situation.
