Nah, I’m voting for the working family party or peace and freedom when that is an option. Where i live the national always goes dem so there is no chance of spoiling the vote.

“Nuh uh”. Good point!

Truly a titillating response

I will just say my lived experience is they do in fact favor different methods. From my own daycare provider having a deportation clause to being on ICE watch to my brother in law being deported, the difference is stark.

Right back at yeah pal. Tear gas tastes better than a bullet

Where is the contradiction in saying the same institution can be directed to use or favor different methods?

Again, I never said the dems don’t utilize the same forces. The critique is in how and to what degree. Surely there are plenty of libs for you to debate that you don’t need to invent a strawman lib.

Then go protest more, I assure you they both use tear gas.

The party responds to those fighting in accordance to their PR. A dem will opt for more covert methods while the repubs will send the police to outright murder people in the streets and celebrate it. All the issues you listed are true, and that is why fighting is not optional.

Robust? I remember when the Supreme Court elected Bush as president.

Organize for a National labor strike

I see. I should have said “vote for where you want to fight; in a concentration camp or in the streets”. I meant it reflects the quality of the fight, not that the fight goes away.

You can say they aren’t really the “boss” but fact remains that voting shapes how the conflict plays out. Voting is choosing the quality of the boss fight.

But thank you for this. In the future I will say “boss fight” instead of “boss” to be more clear.

My response is rooted in a structuralist critique of the system that incentivizes participation. You have said nothing of the incentives other than to assert there is none. What do you hope to accomplish by disparaging me instead of the argument?

So long as you ignore the lived experiences of Americans they will never behave as you think they might. If it were as you said, detached from the needs of the masses, then the grip held by the electoral system would be a simple matter to defeat.

It’s only a non-sequitor if you replace what I said about the interests of the masses with the interests of the capitalist class.

I get that it is difficult to both participate in the system while also dismantling it - that is by design. It is also designed to alienate those who participate from those who do not. That is one of the ways the system defends itself.

Am I to take your question in good faith? Because I really don’t understand how you made this leap from what I said.

who your vote by design has no tangible material effect on

That may be true for you, but it is not true for others. Any revolution predicated on ignoring the material reality of the masses is doomed to fail.

Spending all your time fighting for one boss

That is certainly not what I am advocating for when I say go vote for who you want to fight against.

The correct thing to do is to fight to get rid of the owner and this system, to create a new system that is truly democratic, that will listen to the workers.

Voting does not prevent you from building dual power.

at best you get to choose who interprets the owners orders.

And that has material consequences. To ignore that is to limit who you are able to work with.

Given the measles outbreak, some Americans won’t have to live with that decision for long