>>"When the Oligarchy owns the companies that manufacture the voting machines, we should all know the game is rigged."
I disagree. It doesn't matter who owns the voting machines (or even if voting machines are replaced by manual processes), the "electoral process" (game) will always be rigged (in order to maintain the status quo).
Elected officials are manufactured personalities and celebrities. We vote based on how we are made to feel about corporate political puppets. The puppets, Democrat and Republican, engage in hollow acts of political theater, keeping the fiction of the democratic state alive. There is no national institution left that can accurately be described as democratic. Citizens, rather than participate in power, are permitted virtual opinions to preordained questions, a kind of participatory fascism as meaningless as voting on “American Idol.” Mass emotions are directed predominantly towards the culture wars that include battles over abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration fear-mongering, manufactured moral panics like CRT, great replacement theory (espoused and proliferated by personalities like Tucker Carlon), ... etc. (each generation has its own particular set of manufactured moral panics). We are only permitted to take emotional stands on issues that do not affect corporate power. What we call politics is no longer political.
So, the game will always be rigged - that is the only way the "power elite" can maintain their status quo - by creating illusions using smoke-and-mirrors and psychological manipulation (feelings & emotions - as Caitlin Johnstone so poignantly elucidates in this article).
"Always" is an exaggeration. Sure nothing is ever perfect. But to believe nothing can be done to fight corruption in government is absurd. It's like saying you're always going to have theft in supermarkets - so why have supermarkets in the first place? It's the usual piss poor irrational argument insisting people believe an Ayn Randian based society (without government or taxes) would be a perfect society. What a joke.
I guess you have a habit of not reading and analyzing comments - but rather jumping to conclusions based on your own opinions and assumptions.
(1) What in the above comment even remotely leads you to believe that I suggest "Government is the problem"?
(2) "believe nothing can be done to fight corruption in government" ??? Again - where have I even remotely suggested that nothing can be done about corruption in Government? I don't even talk about corruption. I talk about how the system works. A system doesn't need to be corrupt in order to achieve certain objectives - it can be designed in a way (as the electoral voting process is) to favor particular outcomes.
(3) Your "supermarkets" analogy is absurd. Making such an analogy between supermarkets and governments is logically incomprehensible. Again, you falsely assume that I am against Governments. What is it in the above comment that makes you assume such a thing?
Here's more on deconstructing your "supermarket" theory: Supermarkets serve the function of distribution and access to resources (food) to whoever in the capitalist system can afford to avail of their services. There is a profit motive underlying their business model. On the other hand, Governments serve a very different purpose - some of them being - regulating the economy, providing protection and security to the inhabitants of its subjects, maintaining social order (yes - that often includes strategies for maintaining the status quo of the power elites), and hundreds of other responsibilities. Hence, your analogy of "supermarkets to governments" is ridiculous.
(4) "the usual piss poor irrational argument insisting people believe an Ayn Randian based society (without government or taxes) would be a perfect society" ???
Again, what in the world about my comment makes you think that I am making such an argument?
(5) What makes you think "always" is an exaggeration? Obviously, you have a different understanding of how the world works (and how power and systems of power work) from mine. Your knowledge on that subject is also different than my knowledge. So, instead of asking me - "What do you mean by that?" you straighaway make a statement without backing it up.
jamenta - all I can say is - spend some time analyzing and reflecting on "comments" before jumping to conclusions based on assumptions that are internal to you. Otherwise, you land up creating strawman arguments and attacking those.
From Wikipedia:
"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
??? Are you able to discuss things rationally or just emotionally rant? Can you respond to even one of my above statements? Or will you play the same games that politicians do when asked to provide evidence to support their statements - i.e. cast unfounded accusations and deflect as to to avoid justifying their arguments and stances ?
When the Oligarchy owns the companies that manufacture the voting machines, we should all know the game is rigged.
But we don't.
>>"When the Oligarchy owns the companies that manufacture the voting machines, we should all know the game is rigged."
I disagree. It doesn't matter who owns the voting machines (or even if voting machines are replaced by manual processes), the "electoral process" (game) will always be rigged (in order to maintain the status quo).
Elected officials are manufactured personalities and celebrities. We vote based on how we are made to feel about corporate political puppets. The puppets, Democrat and Republican, engage in hollow acts of political theater, keeping the fiction of the democratic state alive. There is no national institution left that can accurately be described as democratic. Citizens, rather than participate in power, are permitted virtual opinions to preordained questions, a kind of participatory fascism as meaningless as voting on “American Idol.” Mass emotions are directed predominantly towards the culture wars that include battles over abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration fear-mongering, manufactured moral panics like CRT, great replacement theory (espoused and proliferated by personalities like Tucker Carlon), ... etc. (each generation has its own particular set of manufactured moral panics). We are only permitted to take emotional stands on issues that do not affect corporate power. What we call politics is no longer political.
So, the game will always be rigged - that is the only way the "power elite" can maintain their status quo - by creating illusions using smoke-and-mirrors and psychological manipulation (feelings & emotions - as Caitlin Johnstone so poignantly elucidates in this article).
Government itself is not the problem.
"Always" is an exaggeration. Sure nothing is ever perfect. But to believe nothing can be done to fight corruption in government is absurd. It's like saying you're always going to have theft in supermarkets - so why have supermarkets in the first place? It's the usual piss poor irrational argument insisting people believe an Ayn Randian based society (without government or taxes) would be a perfect society. What a joke.
I guess you have a habit of not reading and analyzing comments - but rather jumping to conclusions based on your own opinions and assumptions.
(1) What in the above comment even remotely leads you to believe that I suggest "Government is the problem"?
(2) "believe nothing can be done to fight corruption in government" ??? Again - where have I even remotely suggested that nothing can be done about corruption in Government? I don't even talk about corruption. I talk about how the system works. A system doesn't need to be corrupt in order to achieve certain objectives - it can be designed in a way (as the electoral voting process is) to favor particular outcomes.
(3) Your "supermarkets" analogy is absurd. Making such an analogy between supermarkets and governments is logically incomprehensible. Again, you falsely assume that I am against Governments. What is it in the above comment that makes you assume such a thing?
Here's more on deconstructing your "supermarket" theory: Supermarkets serve the function of distribution and access to resources (food) to whoever in the capitalist system can afford to avail of their services. There is a profit motive underlying their business model. On the other hand, Governments serve a very different purpose - some of them being - regulating the economy, providing protection and security to the inhabitants of its subjects, maintaining social order (yes - that often includes strategies for maintaining the status quo of the power elites), and hundreds of other responsibilities. Hence, your analogy of "supermarkets to governments" is ridiculous.
(4) "the usual piss poor irrational argument insisting people believe an Ayn Randian based society (without government or taxes) would be a perfect society" ???
Again, what in the world about my comment makes you think that I am making such an argument?
(5) What makes you think "always" is an exaggeration? Obviously, you have a different understanding of how the world works (and how power and systems of power work) from mine. Your knowledge on that subject is also different than my knowledge. So, instead of asking me - "What do you mean by that?" you straighaway make a statement without backing it up.
jamenta - all I can say is - spend some time analyzing and reflecting on "comments" before jumping to conclusions based on assumptions that are internal to you. Otherwise, you land up creating strawman arguments and attacking those.
From Wikipedia:
"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Horseshit. You pretend you didn't say what you did. And now proceed to gaslight.
Typical neurotic anti-government (or deep state) assholery.
??? Are you able to discuss things rationally or just emotionally rant? Can you respond to even one of my above statements? Or will you play the same games that politicians do when asked to provide evidence to support their statements - i.e. cast unfounded accusations and deflect as to to avoid justifying their arguments and stances ?
You mean I should engage with someone deliberately gaslighting - after you've called them out on their anti-government bullshit?
No thanks.