When the “good” party eschews primaries because they cannot abide giving the people an opportunity to vote against genocide, that’s only democracy to people who like genocide.
4 is deduced from 1,2,3 the deduction is just using definition and the fact both parties lead to the same outcome to come to a contradiction
Both parties have been elected (1), both led to (2), both aren’t representative (3), You can’t blame voters if they have no power over the outcome, there’s no democracy in US
If the point you’re trying to make is that outcome is irrelevant and only voting itself is what constitutes a democracy then this needs to be applied to other countries as well, North Korea is a democracy
Both parties definitely don’t lead to the same outcome. One party supports cutting welfare for the poor and the other party doesn’t.
This statement is inherently contradictory. So one party is for cutting welfare. If they win, welfare gets cut. If the other pary wins, welfare stays the same, or gets cut only a little (good ol across the aisle compromise). Next cycle the other party wins, welfare gets cut. Same outcome.
Now, if the other party was for increased welfare, or for stopping fracking, or for naturalizing more undocumented immigrants, or for reducing military spending, then you’d have a point. But in selling the democratic party as the alternative to vote for, you can’t even bring yourself to say they stand for something positive. Best we get is that they’re not actively harmful on purpose.
The “other party” doesn’t necessarily need to win next cycle.
But they do. They invariably do, if you look at history. And so, if your choice is between deterioration and stagnation, the net result over time is deterioration.
The only reason Democrats can afford to not increase welfare is because of Republican voters.
Could you elucidate on this point a bit? I could see how democratic politicians are beholden to their corporate donors first, and democratic voters second. But to imply that they somehow answer to people who don’t vote for them (republican voters) is a perspective I haven’t really ever heard before.
(4) because both parties are elected to power by voters
When the “good” party eschews primaries because they cannot abide giving the people an opportunity to vote against genocide, that’s only democracy to people who like genocide.
You do realise that there are more than two parties right?
Suggest voting for a third and watch what happens.
4 is deduced from 1,2,3 the deduction is just using definition and the fact both parties lead to the same outcome to come to a contradiction
Both parties have been elected (1), both led to (2), both aren’t representative (3), You can’t blame voters if they have no power over the outcome, there’s no democracy in US
If the point you’re trying to make is that outcome is irrelevant and only voting itself is what constitutes a democracy then this needs to be applied to other countries as well, North Korea is a democracy
Both parties definitely don’t lead to the same outcome. One party supports cutting welfare for the poor and the other party doesn’t.
The voters absolutely have power over the outcome. They voluntarily chose Trump over Harris in 2024.
North Korea is a one party “democracy”. In the United States, you have multiple parties, more than the two that most people voluntarily vote for.
This statement is inherently contradictory. So one party is for cutting welfare. If they win, welfare gets cut. If the other pary wins, welfare stays the same, or gets cut only a little (good ol across the aisle compromise). Next cycle the other party wins, welfare gets cut. Same outcome.
Now, if the other party was for increased welfare, or for stopping fracking, or for naturalizing more undocumented immigrants, or for reducing military spending, then you’d have a point. But in selling the democratic party as the alternative to vote for, you can’t even bring yourself to say they stand for something positive. Best we get is that they’re not actively harmful on purpose.
The “other party” doesn’t necessarily need to win next cycle.
The only reason Democrats can afford to not increase welfare is because of Republican voters.
But they do. They invariably do, if you look at history. And so, if your choice is between deterioration and stagnation, the net result over time is deterioration.
Could you elucidate on this point a bit? I could see how democratic politicians are beholden to their corporate donors first, and democratic voters second. But to imply that they somehow answer to people who don’t vote for them (republican voters) is a perspective I haven’t really ever heard before.
He thinks giving people who run on decreasing welfare a mandate will stop them from decreasing welfare.
The “other party” doesn’t necessarily need to win next cycle.
The only reason Democrats can afford to not increase welfare is because of Republican voters.