Your opening is the standard lazy shitlib straw man. Saying term limits are anti-democratic does not mean “give Trump a third term,” it means voters should decide rather than having the state pre-emptively remove options from the ballot. That is what a term limit is. It’s not some magical anti-corruption device, but an arbitrary legal restriction on who people are allowed to vote for, imposed on the theory that limiting democracy somehow protects democracy. In practice it does nothing to fix donor capture, party corruption, media manipulation, or institutional decay; it just narrows voter choice while the same unelected interests keep their power completely untouched. The rest of your reply is you wandering off into a generic rant about the two-party system and independents, which has nothing to do with the actual point I made.

This is literally me. This is exactly what I would believe if I was illiterate.

I didn’t say anything about age limits. My point was about term limits: they reduce voter choice based on an arbitrary claim that they function as some kind of harm-reduction mechanism, which is hard to take seriously given how obviously dysfunctional the American system is. Term limits do not solve elite capture, corruption, or institutional failure; they just act as another inertial mechanism that constrains democratic choice and blocks the kind of massive structural change the U.S. clearly needs. Most of your reply was a rant about broader problems I never said anything about, but none of it actually answered the point I made.

I take no issue with that I just think you were misdiagnosing the issues as downstream of a single law as opposed to structural inevitability of the capitalist system whether that specific law exists or not.

Improving lives is generally good. The question is whether people are clear about what they are winning.

I was replying in this very thread to someone calling higher minimum wages and taxes on the rich the solution. That is the problem. Measures like that can be worth fighting for, but they are not a solution. They are stopgaps within the same system that created the crisis.

That matters because without that understanding people mistake temporary concessions for lasting change. They win reforms, are told the problem is solved, pressure drops, and then those reforms are rolled back as soon as capital regains the initiative. We have seen that repeatedly, including in Europe where social protections were swept back once the political balance shifted.

That is not criticizing anything short of perfection. It is insisting on political clarity. Fight for every immediate gain you can win, yes. But understand that unless the system itself is broken, those gains remain limited, fragile, and easily reversible.

I’m not against stopgaps in themselves. If you do not have the power to force real change, then immediate achievable demands make sense. Working people need relief, and there is nothing wrong with fighting for rent caps, wage rises, debt relief, public housing, or stronger labour rights.

What I object to is pretending those things are the solution. They are not. They are stopgaps. They can ease the pressure for a time, but they do not remove the system that produces the crisis in the first place. They do not end landlordism, finance capital, monopoly power, imperialism, or production for profit. They manage the symptoms.

Fight for reforms where they are all you can win. But understand them for what they are. Temporary measures, not emancipation. The crisis of capitalism does not have a reformist solution. Its only solution is the overthrow of the system itself.

Term limits are antidemocratic and largely unhelpful as they disincentivise long term thinking. There’s a reason Amerikkka only put them in place in 1951 after FDR.

I think a lot of problems of late stage capitalism are downstream consequences from this stupid law.

Not really. Capital accumulation above all else is what makes capitalism capitalism. Even without that specific law the system as a whole incentivises and and pushes towards this end.

No that’s not the solution, that’s a stopgap at best. A mild reform. It does nothing to address the core contradictions that drive capitalist crisis.

It’s fun and it fills gaps in the day like commuting or dead time at work etc I wouldn’t bother otherwise.

Responding to it really did take up most of my posts for a while

Oh that’s cool

I was hoping you’d comment!

You know me?

Thank you for the insight :)

You’re welcome always happy to help

You had it right

好(了), 进去 means Ok/alright, go in / get in. 进去 marks motion inward with 去, typically away from the speaker’s deictic center. 进来 would instead mark motion inward toward the speaker’s location or perspective, so would sound more like inviting someone to come in.

“come in” (like answering a door knock)

Not really for that. You would use 进来, 请进, or just 来/来来 in casual speech. The 来 derivative handles the invitation.

进去 marks movement into a space away from the speaker. It is for actual entry, not invitation. Eg:

胡同太窄, 救护车开不进去

(Hútòng tài zhǎi, jiùhùchē kāi bù jìnqu.)

The lane is too narrow for the ambulance to drive in.

I’m a Chinese American you twats.

My condolences

Uyghur “genocide”, double genocide theory, the holodomor

Bernie is absolutely a liberal. Calling him anything else ignores what he actually proposes. He wants to regulate capital, not expropriate it. He wants to blunt capitalism’s worst edges at home while leaving the imperial core intact. That is social democracy at best, a liberal ideology. His own platform accepts the basic framework of private ownership of the means of production. He seeks to manage the crisis, not resolve its root cause. That is precisely the reformism Luxemburg critiqued a century ago in the work I already recommended. You really should read it.

Electoralism under liberal democracy is not a path to socialism. It is a containment strategy. The ballot box is designed to channel dissent into harmless rituals that leave property relations untouched. You think stacking votes can overcome capital’s structural power. But capital does not rule through votes. It rules through ownership of production, control of credit, domination of media, and monopoly on organised violence. When the vote threatens those foundations, the mask comes off. The courts block, the capital strikes, the media smears, the state represses. This is not conspiracy. It is the normal functioning of the bourgeois state. Expecting otherwise is like expecting a wolf to vote itself vegetarian.

Your entire argument rests on idealist assumptions. You treat consciousness as primary and material conditions as secondary. You think changing minds at the ballot box changes the balance of class forces. That is backwards. Social being determines social consciousness, not the other way around. You mistake the form of democracy for its content. You ignore that the two-party system is a mechanism to limit political competition to factions of capital, not to enable working-class rule. You cite 2016 and 2020 as if they were isolated failures of strategy, not expressions of a system that structurally excludes anti-capitalist politics. You blame the left for “quitting” instead of asking why the electoral arena absorbs and neutralises radical energy every single time. This is not analysis. It is moralising.

I am Chinese, not American. We had our revolution. We broke the bourgeois state and built a system where the vote actually means something because it is embedded in democratic centralism and whole-process people’s democracy, not trapped in a ballot box ritual that changes nothing. These electoralist squabbles about which faction of capital should manage the American empire are none of my concern outside of the theoretical interest I take in educating and engaging in dialogue with comrades in a much different situation.

I know it sounds cliché to say “read theory,” but genuinely, every idealist assumption you are recycling has been academically addressed and refuted for decades.

The best alternative liberal Zionist Bernie Sanders who even if he had received all the votes you wanted would have just been undermined and sabotaged again by the DNC establishment like in 2016. You can’t vote the fascism away. The ruling class is not going to politely expropriate themselves. You should read Luxemburg’s “reform or revolution”.

I didn’t presume anything I read your replies as you turned yourself inside out whenever anyone had the slightest bad thing to say about America.