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.

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.

Why ask this question when you clearly have decided that China is bad and America is great? If you want to go to America so bad just do it there’s no need to ask inane questions and fight people giving you answers and advice.

?

The USSR is hiding out in Red Shambhala consolidating power to fight the fascists in the hollow earth.

A big Freikorps fan? Imperialist pillaging of the periphery isn’t a major issue in your mind so long as you get “your” cut of the spoils?

The CIA (but mostly Allen Dulles and his cronies)

Elevating Kim Jong Nam as some poor detefector who was killed for speaking out is kind of funny given he was a CIA asset. And on all those who “disappear” for speaking out you wouldn’t happen to have a source? Ideally one that avoids the ROK defector industrial complex, ROK tabloids or RFA. “It is known” isn’t really enough to assert claims like that

Anecdotal story and all but I feel this encapsulates why most people support kicking Nazis out even if they seem polite to start.

It was just a fairly tone deaf reply given the topic. It comes off very much like the standard nazi defense when they get called out on dog whistles. Maybe that wasn’t your intention but I’m sure if you read them again you can see how it gives that impression.

You are taking all this time to run defense about how it’s actually bad to force Nazis out of spaces like the punk scene because some of them might just be mislabeled. I assumed if you were going to talk shit you’d at least have a solution? If it’s bad to force Nazis out of spaces then should they be allowed in all spaces or did you perhaps receive a divine revelation about how it’s actually possible to beat them in the marketplace of ideas or some such nonsense?

So what’s your solution? Just accept all the Nazis for fear of it really being a mistake? That’s how you get a nazi bar.