Outcomes-based morality is entirely a thing.

Sure, just outside the scope of “are people responsible for their vote”. Saying my vote in November is approving all possible actions is silly. Skipping maintenance at Cherynobyl is not relevant, that has nothing to do with who owns their own voting. Neither does ends-justifies-the-means pondering.

But the naked criminality you attribute to the “system” or both major parties or whatever, is relatively recent.

A long list of avoidable tragedies, intentional harm, and blatant corruption are evidence against this being a “recent” development. Our government has been criminal since before you and I were born, to the point of being actively genocidal against queers like me since long before the AIDS crisis.

True, but hidden criminality, coverups, military decisions are different from loudly announcing the crime on live TV and there being no accountability. That’s what i think is relatively recent.

Bush still got to be president when the courts overturned the 2000 election. Nixon only resigned with the promise of a pardon for his crimes, and the media has been abetting the State since it was founded.

Bush got to be president because the Republican-packed SCOTUS overturned the results. That’s not the system working, that’s it being broken right in front of us.

Nixon’s resignation was a huge win and a very tenuous moment because it could have gone to shit real quick. His crimes, relative to trump & co are pretty laughable now. His policy decisions and the disgusting way they were created are worse than what he was pardoned for. I think it was terrible, and I wouldn’t have done it, but I understand the desire to close the book asap and avoid a sort of Belfast situation for 30 years.

There’s no utility in pretending like America was ever anything but a sanctioned criminal enterprise.

I mean, obviously I disagree so - not sure what to say there. I think that’s an absurdly reductivist view.

By the time primaries are happening, the parties have already narrowed the field of available candidates to only those politicians which the parties find acceptable. Third-parties are only ever spoilers for the main parties because our electoral system is designed to limit choice.

I think the field of primary candidates are there because they have a number of signatures and party affiliation. If that’s what the party finds “acceptable” to run in the primary, I don’t have a problem with that. That’s nothing. What you’re saying is they’ve carefully vetted and weeded out all possible anti-party positions and only allowed those blessed by corporate patrons and the party elite. No. Bernie himself disproves this, but there are many others in history.

That’s a much different thing than they’re all listening to the same fashion consultant or trying to be Reagan lite or whatever the fuck. That’s just politicians being idiots, yeah it happens to the best of parties. Even Deez Nutz has made a few faux-pas on the campaign trail.

Third parties are never big enough to win the Electoral College. That’s why they’re always spoilers. They could (a) be viable national parties before spoiling the Dems again (or, on occasion the Republicans - though that won’t happen again), or (b) work tirelessly to get rid of the Electoral College, which there is a lot more support for than ever before in history.

And third parties should not be bitching they can’t get a fair shake because they’e too goddamned stupid to understand what it takes to win an election. That’s like I wanted to coach the Seattle Mariners but they wouldn’t let me because the system is rigged to only allow people the “club” chooses - oh what a giveaway! C’mon.

“Just because North Korea is a one-party state doesn’t mean the voters have no vote.” That’s what you sound like when you pretend that having two capitalist parties to vote between is the same thing as having actual agency.

No? “In philosophical discussions, agency often relates to free will and personal responsibility—the idea that individuals can intentionally influence events through their choices and actions.” You’re complaining a single voter can’t overturn national foreign policy, therefore they dont’ have agency. I’m saying that’s not a thing; it never has been and it never will. A single voter can vote for the representative to craft the national policy they want. That’s what we have. It takes a lot of effort to run a nation with anything like competence.

If you want the luxury gay space communism we all demand and deserve, you have to go to a shit-ton of boring meetings, put up with many, many narcissistic chowderheads, smile a lot, and work with people who agree with you. Are the - whatever party - doing that? No. No they’re not, and you know why? It’s not because the system is rigged by corporate money (although it certainly is) - it’s because they don’t have any idea how to work together. That’s the bottom line.

The Democrats have a party structure and a national presence and they’ve made it work - inelegantly, barely at times, and not very successfully in the face of abject corruption, but they have it. Whatever third party you might be hoping for -does not. And what’s more they’re not even working on it.

Like North Korea, they’re hoping to bypass all that and just shortcut right to the levers of power and start giving everything away for free. There are many reasons it doesn’t work like that, but the ones you haven’t covered are the ones you should be looking at.

Democracy in America is a sham, deliberately designed to offer the illusion of choice while ensuring that the oligarchs who have always owned and operated this country are not divested of their political power.

It’s a popular notion but no. It’s no sham. It really is everyone of age gets a vote and they can vote for whoever they want. Democracy in America does not account for Fox News. or naked corruption. Or masses of russian-funded disinformation content creators all backing trump. That’s nothing to do with Democracy in America. that’s to do with the fucked up situation Democracy in America is facing. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

If Harris wasn’t a bad candidate then why did she pull a Hillary and throw the election?

You think she threw the election? And that HIllary did as well? Weird. I . . disagree?

A good candidate would have turned out more people to vote and wouldn’t have lost to a grifter like Trump.

Oh, well when you put it like THAT . . . yeah, that’s what they should have done. I wonder why they didn’t spend millions and all their time trying to do that. I mean - you got a “good” candidate you’re hiding? Why? Who is this magical human who can defeat entrenched corruption and evil with a wave of their hand? Give them to us!

The fact that people are still not allowed to discuss the faults and weaknesses of the Dem campaign without being accused of treason to the party is yet more evidence for my argument that our government is working as intended

I mean - don’t we do that a lot? Pretty sure there’s been many discussions about that without anyone being accused of treason. If you’re saying “I know why the Democrats lost, and it’s because they didn’t give away the means of production” I’m not saying that’s treasonous, I’m saying that’s wildly incorrect. Very different.

You’re acting like our democratic process is actually democratic, but then refusing to accept that this implies that the result of the election must be a good reflection of the desires of the people.

Well, yeah Pro Tip: a valid democratic outcome can be bad. That’s true. Is that news? The fact that it’s a valid democratic outcome is good, but beyond that - it can usher in some pretty fucked up shit. Those are very different things.

If Trump is bad and president, then our democracy which elected him can’t be good.

No. Here’s a simile: a democratically elected corrupt asshole is like having a sibling who’s a corrupt asshole. Are they not a sibling because they’re corrupt? No, they’re a sibling - and they’re corrupt. It’s two different things.

Again - propaganda, fake religion, casual racism and bigotry - these are not part of the democratic process. These are attacks on the democratic process. And even with all that - if a person is allowed to vote for who they want to - then, it’s something. Something very good.

Did we get a corrupt asshole out of the deal? Yes. But not because of the way we chose. Because they lied, cheated, stole, misrepresented, etc. And enough people came out to vote for them, and not enough came out to vote for us. That’s not accounted for in the “everyone gets to vote” there’s no sliding scale (except for the Electoral College, ibid).